House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs and First Secretary of State (Dominic Raab)
Covid-19 has deepened the crisis in access to education and learning that children face, especially girls and especially in conflict. That is why Britain is championing two global targets to get 40 million more girls back into school and 20 million more reading over the next five years.
Ben Everitt
One in four school-age children globally—over 500 million children—already lived in a country affected by conflicts or climate-related emergencies before the pandemic. Violence against children in conflict settings is on the rise. More and more children are at risk of recruitment, sexual violence and attacks on their schools and hospitals. Will the Government commit to including those children and addressing the barriers to their learning in a specific target as part of the ambition to ensure 12 years of quality education for every girl?
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend is right to point to this specific problem within the wider challenge of covid and the compound impacts in conflict situations. The support to fragile and conflict-affected states accounts for over 50% of UK aid to education through our country-led programmes. In 2020, we provided over £10 million in new funding to support refugee and displaced children’s education in some of the toughest parts of the world.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab) [V]
I am enormously proud of and grateful for the UK aid that goes to support the poorest children in the world. However, since 31 March, children’s centres, education projects and health facilities have all been forced to close, as Ministers have not signed off on funding agreements. My question to the Foreign Secretary is simple: when will he come to the Chamber and tell the House which aid projects are safe, what is going to be cut, the associated risks and the timeline and criteria he is using? Lives are literally at stake, and jobs are definitely hanging in the balance.
Dominic Raab
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee on International Development for what she has set out. I know that she has a passionate interest in this. Of course, we have taken a very careful approach to the allocations this year. I will be laying them in the House of Commons in the usual way, and I look forward to answering questions in her Committee on Thursday.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP) [V]
Three weeks ago, the Prime Minister announced that the UK would endorse the safe schools declaration, which includes a commitment to the continuation of education in situations of armed conflict. This last year has seen the biggest global education emergency in our lifetime due to covid-19, and every other G7 member has responded to the pandemic by increasing aid. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the UK Government cutting aid to war-torn Syria and Yemen, described by UN Secretary-General António Guterres as a “death sentence”, and cutting spending on education by nearly 40% is undeniably a betrayal of the 75 million children in conflict-affected countries across the world who urgently require support to access education?
Dominic Raab
No, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman’s rather skewed caricature. We remain one of the biggest global donors of aid. In relation to the Global Partnership for Education, I can tell him that our commitment, which we will announce shortly, will increase.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs and First Secretary of State (Dominic Raab)
The UK has been at the forefront of the international effort to de-escalate the very grave humanitarian situation in Tigray. There can be no military solution; conflict can only be resolved through a political settlement. I saw that at first hand when I was in Ethiopia in January.
Rachel Hopkins [V]
Credible media and NGO reports have found human rights abuses, crimes against humanity, massacres and atrocities by all parties to the conflict in Tigray. The UN states that the top public health official for the appointed interim administration in Tigray has reported the use of sexual slavery and grotesque acts of sexual gender-based violence by Ethiopian and Eritrean soldiers, with more than 10,500 cases of rape being committed. When did the Foreign Secretary last speak to the Ethiopian Government to raise the humanitarian, security and human rights situations, and has the Prime Minister spoken to his Ethiopian counterpart?
Dominic Raab
I share the hon. Lady’s concerns about this, and I can reassure her that not only do we regularly raise this, but that is why I visited Ethiopia in January. I went up to Gondar to see for myself the humanitarian access. We have seen since then some improvements in humanitarian access. The Ethiopian Government have introduced a new system that requires notification rather than permission. That is a step forward, but we need further progress. In relation to those credible claims of human rights abuses that we and many have received, I note that Prime Minister Abiy has said that the perpetrators should face justice, and we certainly hold him to that assurance and support the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in the planned investigations that they are working on.
Nickie Aiken
I am sure that my right hon. Friend shares my concern and, frankly, horror at the ongoing reports of rape and sexual violence being used as weapons in the ongoing Tigray conflict, and joins the US Government in calling for a joint investigation by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission into such reports. Does he agree that, with the UK hosting the G7 this summer, this is the perfect opportunity to put preventing sexual violence in conflict on the agenda and to lead a global response to such heinous crimes?
Dominic Raab
I totally share my hon. Friend’s passion and outrage at the human rights violations we have seen—indeed, not just there, but in many other parts of the world—and I can reassure her in relation to the G7 presidency priorities that, along with tackling covid and climate change, pressing for human rights, freedom of speech and accountability for human rights violations are high up on the agenda.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
I think there will be considerable unanimity, frankly, and concern across the House about the situation in Tigray. It is also a test for the UK Government’s integrated diplomacy and aid policies, in that the UK is not without arms in this discussion as a significant donor to the region. I am glad that the Foreign Secretary has been in the region, but is there scope for discussions, and what discussions has he had, with the European Union and the African Union, which are also trying to create a durable peace on this, and what part has the UK played in those efforts, because I think those would be the most productive?
Dominic Raab
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Normally, in this kind of situation we would expect the African Union or other regional partners to be engaged in trying to find a diplomatic dialogue and a way forward. I spoke to President Kenyatta about this and I spoke to Prime Minister Hamdok in Sudan about this, and I have also spoken to the UN and the AU about this. It is absolutely clear, for the reasons he has described, that we need a widespread caucus of like-minded countries pushing for a political solution to this because, on top of humanitarian access and accountability for human rights abuses, we need to have political dialogue. One of the most important aspects of that will be to make sure that, as soon as possible, there are elections across Ethiopia, as Prime Minister Abiy is committed to, but also in the Tigray region.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (James Duddridge)
I thank the hon. Lady for her question and her deep interest in human rights more broadly. We remain seriously concerned about human rights in Zimbabwe, including abductions, arrests and assaults on civil society. In fact, on 1 February, we used our new sanctions regime to hold to account four specific individuals responsible for some of the worst human rights abuses. We will continue to press for genuine political and economic reform, and for Zimbabwean laws to be upheld.
Ruth Jones [V]
In recent weeks, I have received emails from constituents about the worsening and very serious political, economic and human rights situation in Zimbabwe, as the Minister has already outlined. My part of south Wales has a vibrant and thriving Zimbabwean community, and although I accept that the Minister has made an assessment of the situation, I would like to know what concrete steps this Government are taking with allies in the region, directly through Harare and through the community groups here in the UK, because enough is enough. There are children dying from malnutrition now, and we cannot simply sit by silently any more.
James Duddridge
Like the hon. Lady, I have a Zimbabwean community in Southend, with which I engage, but we also engage with near partners, particularly South Africa and the African Union, that are very influential. Our ambassador maintains a dialogue across ZANU-PF, and following the death of Foreign Minister Moyo, with whom I had previously had very frank engagements, I am due to meet his replacement when he gets in role and starts making international engagements. I will continue to make these points; and actually this House making the points, as the hon. Lady is doing, is very helpful, because the eyes of the world are watching the Zimbabwean Government, as are the Zimbabwean people.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (James Duddridge)
As COP hosts, we encourage all countries to make a step change in ambition. The success of COP26 is a top priority for the Government and the FCDO this year. It is prioritised by Ministers and it is prioritised across our diplomatic network.
Martin Docherty-Hughes [V]
We know that climate change threatens minority rights, especially in India, where minority and indigenous groups such as Sikhs, Muslims and Dalits have a close interaction with natural resources. Can the Minister therefore advise the House how the UK Government, in future trade talks in India, intend to seek to embed positive climate change outcomes not just for UK companies and UK citizens, but for those who are most marginalised in India due to climate change?
James Duddridge
The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight marginal groups, specifically in India but also globally. We have pledged to work with young people, faith leaders, women and indigenous people to amplify the voices of the most marginalised and will do that not only through the narrow lens of climate change but also through our overall relationship with other countries, including trade policy.
Julian Sturdy [V]
A major hurdle in reducing world carbon emissions is our need to sustainably produce 70% more food by 2050 to feed almost 2 billion additional people. Can the Minister therefore reassure me that this vital issue of global food security will be kept at the forefront of Britain’s global climate and development strategies going forward?
James Duddridge
I can certainly reassure my hon. Friend. In fact, the global transition to sustainable agriculture, and specifically key land use, is a key focus of our COP26 nature campaign, and we are seeking to make further international progress towards climate resilience and sustainable agriculture through the transition to sustainable agriculture dialogues, which will begin next week, so the question is very timely.
Stuart Anderson [V]
I have launched a survey to better understand what matters to my constituents in Wolverhampton in protecting our precious environment. What discussions has my hon. Friend had with international partners to ensure that everybody is included in the global effort to tackle climate change?
James Duddridge
My hon. Friend is a dynamo on climate change in his constituency, and we in our own modest way hope to be dynamos at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. We will encourage climate ambition in this critical year of COP; through our presidency we will make an inclusive COP, listening to all parties. It is important that we engage here in the UK, but also that we engage throughout the G7 across communities that are not directly affected now but will be in the future and that need to embed the ideas of climate change and ambition for the future by driving forward Executives to do more. I thank my hon. Friend for his work, and we will work with him on the international stage.
Angela Crawley [V]
It has been revealed that UK officials have said that
“greater levels of climate action are urgently needed”
and that
“before COP26, partners must step up with more forward-looking commitments.”
I am sure such a statement would carry weight in the international community if it were not for the fact that the UK is simultaneously cutting its overseas spending, which would be helping developing economies to become greener and adapt to steps to address climate change. South Africa’s Environment Minister has called the aid cut “a concern”. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact on climate change of the UK’s cuts to funds committed to the sustainable development goals, of which tackling climate change is a central priority?
James Duddridge
As the hon. Lady can imagine, this is a very important issue, and I have asked the question internally within the Department and can assure her that we are doubling our international climate finance to £11.6 billion over the next five years and have committed to aligning all official development assistance with the Paris agreement, so actually there is a really positive story to tell.
Clive Lewis [V]
A recent Cambridge Sustainability Commission on Scaling Behaviour Change report says the world’s wealthiest 1% need to emit 30 times less carbon than they currently do by 2030 if we are to have a fair transition to net zero and, according to the science, save the lives and livelihoods of millions, perhaps billions, of the world’s poorest from the worst effects of the climate emergency. Given the stakes and given the UK’s historical and disproportionate carbon emissions, will the Minister commit to ensuring that not a single penny from the public purse will be used to fund or subsidise the fossil fuel industry, including through development aid?
James Duddridge
Certainly everybody, especially those emitting the most, needs to make those reductions. We are no longer investing in fossil fuels. Various organisations clearly have a historical book of fossil fuel investment that can be managed down over time, but we are very exercised to do the right thing as individuals and as Government, and, through COP26, to be leading and ambitious and ask others to be ambitious as well.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
To galvanise global support to avert the climate catastrophe, tackle poverty and improve global health in a year when the UK will host the G7 and COP26, we must bring countries together. Instead, this Government are the only one in the G7 to have taken the callous decision to cut their aid budget, which weakens our ability to bring countries together to tackle the global challenges we face. The Government’s cuts to the aid budget will remove a lifeline from hundreds of thousands of people and damage our planet, leaving us all less safe. Rather than hiding behind written statements, will the Foreign Secretary face up to his decision, make a statement to the House on his spending plans for 2021 and put his Government’s cuts to a vote?
James Duddridge
The Foreign Secretary is attending the International Development Committee on Thursday, which will allow for a forensic examination of everything that he says, but we are here at the Dispatch Box answering questions. I myself am answering seven or eight questions. Far from running away, we are engaging in this debate, and we have a good story to tell. We are one of the best contributors in the G7 in relation to our GNI. We have the pledge of 0.7%, and we will get back to that when the economy allows. We should be proud, but we need to live within our means.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con)
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa (James Cleverly)
The UK is actively encouraging the parties back to dialogue. We support the decision of the Palestinian Authority and the Government of Israel to resume co-operation. We are now pushing for deeper co-operation on health and economic issues, including the re-establishment of the joint economic committee, to rebuild trust and move towards a lasting solution. We support the objectives of the international fund for Israeli-Palestinian peace and will continue to engage with the Alliance for Middle East Peace and President Biden’s Administration to identify further opportunities for collaboration. We are working with regional partners and the United States Administration to seize on the positive momentum of normalisation, alongside improving Israeli-Palestinian co-operation, to advance the prospects of a two-state solution.
Andrew Selous [V]
I am pleased to hear what my right hon. Friend says. Does he agree, though, that a just and lasting peace must be built on the rule of law, with severe consequences for systematic breaches whoever commits them, and that all Palestinians, including those in East Jerusalem, must have the right to vote on 22 May?
James Cleverly
We regularly call on Israel to abide by its obligations under international law, and we have regular conversations on this issue. We also encourage the Palestinian leadership to work towards democratic institutions based on the rule of law, and we welcome President Abbas’s announcement of dates for elections in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and will work closely with the Palestinian Authority to support that. We have called for elections in East Jerusalem; my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has done so, and I did so with the Israeli ambassador in a meeting that we had just yesterday.
Nicola Richards
Despite assurances that, after countless delays, the EU review of Palestinian textbooks would be published in March, there is still no sign of the report. UK taxpayers’ money pays the salaries of Palestinian teachers who use material inciting violence against Israel and Jews, making peace harder to achieve. What more will my right hon. Friend do to ensure that UK aid does not prolong the conflict?
James Cleverly
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. I remind the House that the UK does not fund the textbooks used in Palestinian schools. We understand that the EU review is in its final stages. We are not able to comment on the content of that report until it is released. We regularly engage with the EU at senior level to push for timely publication, and we regularly liaise with the Palestinian Authority to try to bring about the improvements that my hon. Friend has highlighted.
Rosie Cooper [V]
It is now five months since the US Congress passed a $250 million Act to create the international fund for Israeli-Palestinian peace, the largest ever investment in peace building. In November, our Ministers promised to examine the feasibility of the UK taking up one of the international seats on the fund’s board. Will the Minister tell us the results of that assessment and confirm that the UK will use the G7 summit to step up and help to lead this exciting new project with the United States?
James Cleverly
We always engage positively with any steps that push towards greater peace and reconciliation between the Israelis and the Palestinians, and we have engaged with this process. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, we are currently going through a programme of work assessing what we will do with our overseas development aid, but we will continue to engage with the Biden Administration, the Israeli Government and the Palestinian Authority to pursue what has been the long-standing UK goal: a peaceful, prosperous, meaningful two-state solution.
Mrs Sheryll Murray [V]
I draw attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, because I have been to Israel with the Conservative Friends of Israel.
With the G7 coming to Cornwall, we should underline our commitment to international institutions and multilateral co-operation. We welcomed the US middle east partnership for peace Act in December, but does the Minister agree that it is now time for the UK to take a board seat on the international fund for Israeli-Palestinian peace?
James Cleverly
I thank my hon. Friend for her question, which I partially answered in my prior response to the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper). We have no current plans, but we always take a keen interest in any initiatives that encourage peace and co-operation between the Israeli Government and the Palestinian Authority, and indeed, the Israeli people and the Palestinian people. We will continue to work along- side Governments in the region and the US Administration in pursuit of that objective.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab) [V]
The International Criminal Court has decided to conduct an investigation into alleged war crimes by Palestinian armed groups and Israeli forces in the occupied territories. The FCDO has stated that the UK respects the independence of the ICC. However, the Prime Minister said that the investigation is a “prejudicial attack”, so does the Minister believe that the court is independent or not?
James Cleverly
We absolutely respect the independence of the International Criminal Court. We do expect it to comply with its own mandate. The UK will remain a strong supporter of the ICC.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Wendy Morton)
The Foreign Secretary and junior Ministers, including myself, speak regularly to counterparts in the G7 and other countries about official development assistance, including in supporting the response to and recovery from covid-19. The Foreign Secretary’s most recent bilateral conversations on international development with G7 partners were with French Foreign Minister Le Drian and Japanese Foreign Minister Motegi. As G7 president and host this year, we are strongly supporting work towards a sustainable, inclusive and resilient recovery, and the Foreign Secretary will host G7 Foreign and Development Ministers in May, when we will discuss sustainable recovery as an integral part of our agenda.
Mr Mitchell
Are the Government not a little concerned that when they are chairing the G7 in a global pandemic, when international development has never been more important, the Germans have hit the 0.7%, the French have embraced the 0.7%, and the Americans have increased their international development spending by no less than $15 billion, whereas we in Britain are breaking our promise to the poorest, breaking our manifesto commitment on which we were all elected just over a year ago, and cutting humanitarian aid, leading directly to hundreds of thousands of avoidable deaths, particularly among women and children?
Wendy Morton
I do not accept what my right hon. Friend is saying. The UK remains a development superpower. Based on OECD data for 2020, the UK will be the third largest official development assistance donor in the G7 as a percentage of GNI in 2021. We will spend a greater percentage of our GNI than the US, Japan, Canada or Italy and, to be absolutely clear, we will still spend £10 billion on ODA in 2021. We have said that we will return to spending 0.7% on ODA as soon as the fiscal situation allows, but we have clear priorities and remain an active, confident, internationalist, burden-sharing and problem-solving nation.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
The Minister for Asia (Nigel Adams)
We are at the heart of discussions about global challenges and mega-trends, including through the UK’s G7 and COP26 presidencies. On clean growth, we will harness those presidencies to advance our climate agenda in the run-up to COP26. On artificial intelligence, in September, the UK signed a declaration with the US to drive technological breakthroughs in AI. This puts the UK at the forefront of the AI and data revolution. On science, the UK has strong science collaboration arrangements with more than 50 countries, from the research powerhouses of the US and Europe to emerging economies.
George Freeman [V]
Through my work with the Prime Minister’s taskforce on innovation, growth and regulatory reform, we are looking at how we can make Brexit a real opportunity for the UK as a global science and innovation superpower to better integrate our aid and trade and to boost R&D investment, inward investment, exports and sustainable global development. Does the Minister agree that, to help developing nations to confront the biggest global grand challenges of sustainable agriculture and development, as set out in the Foresight report, including the challenge of nearly doubling world food production on the same land area with half as much water and energy, we could use variable tariffs to incentivise high-quality production, and UK aid to support tech transfer of UK agritech and clean tech for sustainable growth?
Nigel Adams
I thank my hon. Friend for all the work he does in this area. Nowadays—and when he was an excellent Minister—we provide preferential tariffs for 70 developing countries through the generalised scheme of preferences. This includes a framework covering implementation and international environment conventions. We are supporting international research partnerships and the roll-out of agritech across the poorest and most climate-vulnerable countries. This is delivering crop varieties that are more productive, nutritious and resistant to drought and pests. Our clean tech investments are enabling UK battery pioneers to develop new technologies and business models to deliver clean energy in Africa.
Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Wendy Morton)
The UK remains a global leader in international development and is committed to supporting the world’s poorest people. Based on current GNI forecasts, we will spend over £10 billion of ODA in 2021. The Foreign Secretary has set out seven priorities for the UK’s aid budget this year, all of which are in the overarching pursuit of poverty reduction. This new strategic approach will allow us to achieve greater impact from our aid budget, notwithstanding the difficult financial position that we face, and UK ODA continues to serve the primary aim of reducing poverty in developing countries.
Julie Marson [V]
I thank the Minister for her response. I am pleased that I am due to meet the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge), shortly to discuss development bonds and a specific opportunity that has arisen. What steps is the FCDO taking to embed innovative finance solutions within the Department’s work to ensure that the UK’s development approach is the most effective at combating poverty globally?
Wendy Morton
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I know that this is something she takes an interest in. Aid alone cannot deliver the sustainable development goals. The $2.5 trillion annual financing gap for the SDGs means that we need creative solutions that engage the private sector to end global poverty, and the FCDO is testing innovative financing tools that will pull private finance towards sustainable development. We are currently running a pilot on development impact bonds that will draw in impact investment to achieve the SDG outcomes, such as helping 13,000 households living in extreme poverty in rural Kenya and Uganda to set up income-generating businesses.
Kate Osamor [V]
This Government’s decision to cut the aid budget at a time of a global pandemic and economic crisis risks pushing millions of vulnerable people in developing countries into extreme poverty. Co-operative development in sectors such as farming is vital in reducing poverty, generating wealth and power fairly among producers. Can the Secretary of State guarantee that the co-operative sectors will not be damaged by these cuts?
Wendy Morton
It is important to remind ourselves and recognise that we will still be spending £10 billion of ODA in 2021 and that the UK economy is 11.3% smaller than last year and undergoing the worst contraction for 300 years. That said, the Foreign Secretary set out clearly in his written ministerial statement on 26 January the conclusion of the cross-Government review on ODA. Driven by the integrated review, our process is really focusing on seven key priorities: climate and biodiversity; covid and global health security; girls’ education; science and research; open societies and conflict; humanitarian assistance; and trade.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa (James Cleverly)
Since 2015, the UK has provided £11 billion in humanitarian funding. As the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), has just stated, despite this unprecedented economic contraction, we are still proud of our contribution. We remain, in both absolute terms and percentage terms, one of the most generous ODA-donating countries in the world.
Steven Bonnar
I thank the Minister for that answer. While every other G7 member state has responded to the pandemic by increasing aid, the UK Government are out there alone in choosing to cut it by approximately £4 billion this year, after a cut of £2.9 billion last year. The pandemic should have been a rallying cry to this Government, encouraging more robust and urgent investment and prioritisation action to meet sustainable development goals. Instead, this Government chose a path of staggering and shocking betrayal, turning their back on the world’s poorest. Have any impact assessments been carried out on how these cuts will affect those in conflict zones? If not, how long will we have to wait for this Government to show a shred of compassion?
James Cleverly
I remind the hon. Gentleman and the House that the UK remains one of the largest donating countries in the G7 and indeed the world. Our commitment to that is undiminished, which is why I am very pleased that we have been able to strengthen our commitments to our headquarters in East Kilbride, in Abercrombie House. We are proud that, despite the fact that we have this economic contraction, we are still donating £10 billion in ODA.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
The Minister for Asia (Nigel Adams)
The violent crackdown and killing of peaceful protesters in Myanmar are completely unacceptable and require a strong message from the international community. The UK secured G7 statements on 3 February and 23 February, as well as a United Nations Security Council presidential statement on 10 March. In response to the military’s appalling human rights violations, the UK has imposed sanctions on two key military-linked entities that fund the military’s actions and on nine senior military figures, including the commander-in-chief.
Carla Lockhart [V]
I thank the Minister for his answer. Can I impress upon him the plight of the people in Myanmar and the need to do all in the power of the Government to assist them? Do the Government intend to review the process of administering sanctions, which is often slow and difficult? Will he inform the House as to what talks are being held with other Governments, particularly those in Asia, to ensure a united approach is being taken to sanctions on the Myanmar regime?
Nigel Adams
I thank the hon. Member for her question. When we impose sanctions, we have to make sure that they are done on a properly solid legal basis. The Foreign Secretary recently travelled to Brunei and Indonesia and attended the second United Kingdom-Association of Southeast Asian Nations meeting of Foreign Ministers. We made clear our views on the coup in Myanmar and the senseless violence against civilians. We welcome ASEAN’s unique role in addressing the crisis and support its call for an end to the violence and for restraint and a peaceful resolution.
Afzal Khan [V]
The people of Myanmar desperately need help. Medical staff such as my constituent Dr Thomas Lamb have been actively persecuted—including through arbitrary detention, torture and death—simply for attempting to treat peaceful protesters. Following the coup d’état in February, my constituent saw at first hand the atrocities committed by the junta, such as the use of gunfire and the forcible removal of innocent civilians from their homes. During his meetings with the military junta’s Foreign Minister, has the Minister raised the killings of more than 700 innocent Burmese civilians? Will he now follow the lead of Canada and the Netherlands and formally join the Gambia’s genocide case against Myanmar at the International Court of Justice?
Nigel Adams
We have been clear that we are completely steadfast in our opposition to the coup. What is happening to innocent civilians in Myanmar is obscene. We have demonstrated our strong international leadership, including at the UN Security Council and the G7. We are clear that there should be accountability for the military’s acts, both historic and recent, and that all options, including referral to the International Criminal Court, should be on the table.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab) [V]
The Labour party stands with the pro-democracy protesters in Myanmar, who have shown extraordinary courage in resisting the barbaric brutality of the military junta. The UK Government’s response has lacked both strength and urgency. The Minister mentioned the ASEAN conference, but the tweet put out by the Foreign Secretary shortly after that conference made no mention whatsoever of what has been happening in Myanmar; will the Minister say a little more about why? Also, 42 nations have an arms embargo against Myanmar; will the Government commit today to writing to every other UN nation asking them to join that arms embargo? Will the Foreign Secretary publicly call for the orchestrators of the atrocities that we are witnessing in Myanmar—
Nigel Adams
We are clear that countries should not sell arms to the Myanmar military. We played a key role in securing and strengthening an EU arms embargo following the 2017 Rohingya crisis. The Foreign Secretary welcomed ASEAN’s unique role in addressing the crisis, in line with the purpose and principles enshrined in the ASEAN charter.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs and First Secretary of State (Dominic Raab)
We have significant concerns about the recent Russian military build-up of forces on Ukraine’s border. We are working with our allies—I was at a NATO meeting of Foreign and Defence Ministers last week—and our objective is to deter Russia, reassure Ukraine and de-escalate the situation.
Chris Bryant
I am glad to hear that, but, in 1994, the UK, Russia and the United States of America signed the Budapest memorandum, which issued not exactly guarantees but assurances that we would respect the independence, sovereignty and existing borders of Ukraine, in return for which Kiev surrendered 1,900 strategic nuclear warheads, which was vital to secure peace in the region. Is it not now all the more incumbent on us to make it very clear that we will continue to provide political, diplomatic, scientific, financial and, if necessary, military support to Kiev?
Dominic Raab
I thank the hon. Gentleman, who has long-standing experience of this issue; I agree with his level of concern. There are three things that we are doing right now that matter. The first is holding Russia to its international commitments, including not just the ones that he mentioned, but the OSCE principles of accountability for the build-up of troops. Russia has not responded to the calls for an explanation within the OSCE. We will continue our robust approach to sanctions. He is right that we will continue to provide diplomatic support, but we will also continue to provide military support: since 2015, through Operation Orbital, we have trained more than 20,000 Ukrainian armed forces personnel.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con) [V]
I very much welcome the words of the Foreign Secretary, but has he done an assessment in his Department about how Russia is reading the troop reductions in the British Army and the withdrawal from Afghanistan? Both will be seen from Moscow as a sign that, perhaps, NATO is not quite as serious as we are making out. What is he able to do diplomatically about that? While we do still carry a big stick, some elements seem to be looking a little weaker. Perhaps he can reinforce them by encouraging his partner in Cabinet to put more resources into the Army.
Dominic Raab
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee, but I am afraid that he is wrong. It is vital that, as well as increasing the defence and security budget in the ground-breaking way that the Prime Minister and the Defence Secretary have done, we make sure that it is agile and fit to face the challenges of the future, including from not just conventional armed forces, but cyber and the other hostile state activity. I was in Brussels on 14 April and spoke to the US Defence Secretary and the Secretary of State along with other Foreign Ministers and Defence Ministers from NATO. We are absolutely clear in condemning the build-up of troops. We are assuring Ukraine, as I have said, and we are working overall to de-escalate the situation.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
Russia has amassed 100,000 troops on the border with Ukraine, Alexei Navalny lies deteriorating in a prison hospital, and a NATO ally has come under attack from the same hands as those who used chemical weapons on the streets of the UK. Yet in the 18 months since the Foreign Secretary was handed the Russia report, the UK has remained a safe haven for the dark money that helps to sustain the Putin regime, the Conservative party has taken £1 million in donations from Russian-linked sources, and oligarchs are welcomed with open arms. Seriously—I have asked him this before—what accounts for the delay in implementing the Russia report? Is it repercussions from Russia that he is worried about, or is it repercussions from his own party?
Dominic Raab
I thank the hon. Lady, but I have to say that that is a pretty weak attempt to weave in partisan political considerations in what is a very serious international issue. On the Intelligence and Security Committee report: we have already taken multiple actions against the Russian threat, exposing the reckless cyber activity—we have done that and she is aware of that; we have introduced a new power to stop individuals at UK ports to see whether they represent a threat as part of the hostile state activity; we are introducing new legislation to provide the security services and law enforcement agencies with additional tools to tackle the evolving threat from hostile states; and, as she knows, I will shortly be introducing an extension of the Magnitsky sanctions in relation to corruption.
Just in relation to Salisbury, it was not that long ago that the hon. Lady was campaigning for the leader of her party at the time to be Prime Minister—someone who backed the Russians against this Prime Minister who, as Foreign Secretary, galvanised the international response to the appalling attacks on the streets of Salisbury.
Lisa Nandy
The difference between the right hon. Gentleman and me is that I stood up to my former party leadership when they got it wrong on this issue. It is pathetic that he cannot do the same given the gravity of the situation that this country currently faces. He has had 18 months since the publication of a report that his own Prime Minister tried to block. We have had no action on golden visas, no powers to sanction corrupt officials. Up to half of all the money that is laundered out of Russia comes through the United Kingdom and, in three years since the Salisbury attacks, it is still not illegal to be a foreign agent in this country. Meanwhile we have seen the oligarchs and kleptocrats who have profited from the Putin regime funnelling money to the Conservative party. [Interruption.] He shakes his head, but it is £5 million since David Cameron became leader. His own Minister, the Minister for Asia, has had multiple donations from a former Russian arms dealer who described himself as “untouchable” because of his links with the Kremlin. If the Foreign Secretary wants to clear this up, he can clear it up once and for all: implement those recommendations from the Russia report; defend the security, the democracy and the integrity of this country; stop the gross negligence; and give us a date by which all 23 recommendations will be implemented in full.
Mr Speaker
Can I just tidy this up? If we are going to make allegations, they have to be made on a substantive motion; that must be done in the correct manner. Things are getting heated. Let us just calm it down.
Dominic Raab
In relation to the registration of agents, all the hon. Lady has done is pick up on the action that the Home Secretary has already announced and proposed, and called for it; it is a classic action from the shadow Foreign Secretary. [Interruption.] She is talking over me because she does not like the response. The reality is that she did campaign for the former leader of the Labour party to be Prime Minister—a man who, in fact, backed Russia at the time when this Prime Minister, as Foreign Secretary, galvanised the international community in an unprecedented diplomatic reaction to President Putin. We will continue to stand up for the British national interest; the shadow Foreign Secretary will make her political points.
Mr Speaker
Let us see if we can turn the temperature down, with Dave Doogan.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs and First Secretary of State (Dominic Raab)
May I first pay tribute to His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, whose life’s work was to serve our country, often on the world stage?
Since the last oral questions, I have attended the UK-Gibraltar joint ministerial council and reaffirmed our commitment to delivering a treaty with the EU that safeguards UK sovereignty and the prosperity of Gibraltar and the surrounding region. I have also visited Indonesia and Brunei to forge closer ties and to join the second UK Association of Southeast Asian Nations ministerial dialogue as the UK pursues ASEAN dialogue partner status.
Dave Doogan
My constituent David Cornock tragically lost his son in Thailand in 2019. Mr Cornock is adamant that his son did not commit suicide, but was murdered—and, after supporting him for 18 months in this case, I am inclined to agree with his assessment. The FCDO insists that in order to get Mr Cornock’s son’s case reopened and properly investigated, the only avenue for my constituent is personally to petition the Thai Attorney General, with no diplomatic support. The Department provided a list of 10 Thai lawyers to expedite this; six declined, two did not respond, one did not speak English and the other wanted £25,000 upfront.
Moreover, thanks to the Minister for Asia, the hon. Member for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams), I have since established that there is not a single instance where a UK citizen has successfully petitioned the Thai Attorney General in the way determined by the FCDO. Will the Secretary of State agree to take up this case with the Thai ambassador here in London, and, having due regard for diplomatic norms and the sovereignty of internal justice, review this wholly unrealistic protocol by the FCDO? Will he also meet me and my constituent to discuss the matter?
Dominic Raab
First of all, we at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office try to give the best advice that we can as to how such cases—I have dealt with a number of these difficult cases over the years—can be raised most effectively. If it is viewed that there is political interference, it is often counterproductive. Of course, we will take another look at the case to see whether there is anything more that we can do. We give advice in good faith as to the best and most effective means to try to secure the outcome that the hon. Gentleman wants for his constituents.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Dominic Raab
We will obviously attend the UN General Assembly in September. In relation to the Durban declaration and its anniversary, let me reassure my right hon. Friend that—as we demonstrated at the Human Rights Council recently on the approach that we took to items 7 and 2—we will not support any partisan or political attacks on Israel. I reassure her that the Government are absolutely crystal clear in our condemnation of and opposition to any and all forms of antisemitism.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
As we have heard this morning, this year the UK hosts the global COP summit and the G7, which give us a wonderful opportunity to lay out our leadership and ambition on a world stage. If the Government are really serious about tackling the climate emergency, where is the leadership on the deforestation question in Brazil, where, under the leadership of Jair Bolsonaro, we have seen a rise up to the highest levels of deforestation and impact on indigenous communities in more than a decade? Has the Foreign Secretary raised this directly with Jair Bolsonaro? If not, in broad terms what is he doing at an institutional level to try to address that desperate issue?
Dominic Raab
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. Deforestation is a key plank of our agenda for COP26, and I have raised it in Indonesia, where it is obviously a big issue, and in parts of Asia. I also raised it recently in a virtual meeting I had with Foreign Minister Araújo of Brazil, although he is no longer in place. The key will be galvanising international support to make sure that the measures those countries take are not economically damaging to them, while at the same time being environmentally sustainable for the world. We have a key plank of work that is focused on that area, and I can reassure the hon. Lady that it is a major component of our approach to COP26.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con) [V]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Wendy Morton)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. The Minister of State for South Asia and the Commonwealth, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, set out the UK’s serious concerns about human rights in Sri Lanka in a statement at the UN Human Rights Council on 25 February, and the UK has welcomed the adoption in March of a new UN Human Rights Council resolution on promoting reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka. That UK-led resolution enhances the UN’s role in monitoring the situation and collecting evidence of human rights violations that can be used in future accountability processes. Just quickly on the point about sanctions, though, it is important to recognise that it would not be appropriate to speculate on any further designation.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Dominic Raab
The hon. Gentleman will know that the Czech explosion that led to the attribution was many years ago. The decision to attribute was the product of a long investigation by the Czech authorities, and he will have seen that we stood absolutely full square in solidarity with our Czech friends.
In the ways that I explained earlier to the shadow Foreign Minister, the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), we have increased and continue to increase our measures for screening and for accountability, and of course, through the Magnitsky sanctions—which the hon. Gentleman himself has championed—we have a new means of targeting human rights abuses. To the extent that they also impinge on dirty money, which in fairness the hon. Member for Wigan spoke about, I have already made clear that we will shortly be introducing an extension to the Magnitsky sanctions to cover that.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
Dominic Raab
Absolutely. We take the consular work that we do for citizens abroad exceptionally seriously. We deal with those cases day in, day out, often below the media or public radar. I am very happy for Ministers in the Department to look again at the case she has raised to see whether there is anything further we can do. That is very difficult and always very complex, even in European countries, but we must be able to satisfy ourselves that we are doing everything we can to provide closure and accountability for the families affected.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con) [V]
Dominic Raab
I know my hon. Friend has a strong vested interest in that conference, beyond her international interest. Ahead of the leaders summit—I let her and the House know—I will be convening the G7 Foreign and Development Ministers meeting from 3 to 5 May here in London. That will be a very important opportunity to build on and tee up our work on equitable access to vaccines in relation to the pandemic, our ambitious global girls education targets, the rigorous and ambitious approach we are taking to climate finance, and commitment to media freedoms, human rights and democracy.
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (James Duddridge)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his engagement in this issue. We are already doing an awful lot on debt suspension, most importantly on the common framework and on those remaining countries such as Somalia and Sudan, which were left out of the HIPC—heavily indebted poor countries—process, but there are other parties and complexities, China’s sovereign debt being one of them and multilaterals another, as well as sovereign nations’ private sector debt, which we would encourage to participate where appropriate.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
Wendy Morton
My hon. Friend is right to highlight this important issue. She takes a very keen interest in girls education and 2021 is a crucial year for it, with multiple opportunities for us to take co-ordinated action with our international partners to address the learning losses from covid-19. That is why the UK has put girls education at the heart of our G7 presidency. We are working with G7 members to champion two SDG 4 milestone targets: 40 million more girls in school and 20 million more girls reading by the age of 10 in low and lower-middle income countries over the next five years. The UK with Kenya will also host the global education summit in July to mobilise much needed financing.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab) [V]
Wendy Morton
First, we really welcome the Colombian Government’s continuing commitment to the full implementation of the 2016 peace agreement with FARC. We will continue to support them in doing so. Colombia is an FCDO human rights priority country. We regularly raise concerns with the Colombian Government and at the UN. We will continue to do so. Our embassy will continue to support at-risk human rights defenders, social leaders and ex-combatants, and will work to tackle the root causes of the violence.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
James Duddridge
I thank my hon. Friend for that very topical question. We welcome the success of the Israeli vaccination programme, and the co-operation between the UK and Israel on covid continues throughout the pandemic. On 17 May, the Prime Minister will announce further travel measures and which countries will fit into which traffic-light categorisations. We are looking to see how we can share health data, and we are all looking forward to hearing from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster following his visit, to get some real-life examples on what we can do here in the UK.
Mr Speaker
I am now suspending the House for three minutes to enable the necessary arrangements for the next business.
Petition
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
It is, as always, very nice to see you in your place, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The Communication Workers Union and a great many of my constituents have been in touch concerning the plans set out by BT to make thousands of its loyal employees redundant. I therefore rise to present this petition on behalf of my east end constituents who want to see the massive redundancies of BT employees avoided and want to see the BT Group engage constructively in discussions to avoid thousands of people losing their employment in the middle of a pandemic.
The petition states:
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to engage with the BT Group to avoid the compulsory redundancies of thousands of hardworking and dedicated staff members.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of the residents of the constituency of Glasgow East,
Declares that, during the coronavirus pandemic, people have undoubtedly spent more time at home with more people using their Wi-Fi for home working and home schooling; further that, throughout the pandemic, BT, Openreach and EE employees have worked tirelessly to keep us all connected and online; further that MPs from across this House will have received countless emails from BT staff and customers who are concerned with the plans set out to make thousands of BT employees redundant, close hundreds of workplaces and give no pay offer; further that the Communications Workers Union is standing by and is ready to hold negotiations with the BT Group on behalf of workers, hoping to find a solution; and further that the UK Government should engage with the BT Group in order to prevent the thousands of redundancies about to hit hardworking individuals whilst we are in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to engage with the BT Group to avoid the compulsory redundancies of thousands of hardworking and dedicated staff members.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002660]
Afghanistan
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on Afghanistan.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (James Heappey)
Following the shocking attacks of September 11 2001, NATO allies invoked article 5 of the Washington treaty. An attack on one was an attack on us all. In Afghanistan over the two decades since, NATO has shown extraordinary resolve in a country where the soldiering is tough and operational success is very hard won. Some 150,610 UK service personnel have served in Afghanistan over the last 20 years. Hundreds of our troops have suffered life-changing injuries, and 457 of our young men and women have made the ultimate sacrifice in the service of our country. I pay tribute to their service and their sacrifice. They will not be forgotten.
I served in Afghanistan on two tours—the first, to Kabul in 2005; and the second, to Sangin, in 2009. My battalion lost 13 men on that second tour, with many more killed in our wider battlegroup. I have friends who will walk on prosthetic limbs for the rest of their lives, and I know people who suffered severe mental pain that tragically caused them to subsequently take their own lives. Like every other Afghanistan veteran, when I heard NATO’s decision last week, I could not help but ask myself whether it was all worth it.
We went into Afghanistan to disrupt a global terrorist threat and to deny al-Qaeda the opportunity to use that nation as a base for mounting further international attacks. In that mission, we were successful. By fighting the insurgency in its heartlands in the south and east of the country, NATO created space for the machinery of the Afghan government to be established and strengthened. Afghan civil society flourished. Schools reopened and girls enjoyed education just as boys did. There is a vibrant and free media. Women are not only valued and respected but are working in Afghan academia, healthcare and politics. Over 20 years we have developed and then partnered the brave men and women of the Afghan national security forces. They are now a proud army with the capacity to keep the peace in Afghanistan if empowered to do so by future Governments in Kabul.
Those of us who have served very rarely get to reflect on an absolute victory; only in the most binary of state-on-state wars can the military instrument alone be decisive. But two generations of Afghan children have now grown up with access to education. The Afghan people have tasted freedom and democracy, and they have an expectation of what life in their country should be like in the future. The Taliban, apparently, have no appetite to be an international pariah like they were in the late ‘90s. Our endeavours over the past two decades have created those conditions and have given Afghanistan every chance of maintaining peace within its own borders. We will continue to support the Afghan Government in delivering that, but our military could not stay in Afghanistan indefinitely, and so we will leave, in line with NATO allies, by September. Nothing in the future of Afghanistan is guaranteed, but the bravery, determination and sacrifice of so many British soldiers, sailors, airmen and airwomen has given Afghanistan every possible chance of success.
Mr Ellwood
Sending our troops into conflict is the biggest decision that any Prime Minister has to make. The strategic objective must be clear, yet we now withdraw from Afghanistan, after enormous cost and human sacrifice, with the country heading towards another civil war and the Taliban on the ascent. I have visited the country many times. This cannot be the exit strategy that we ever envisaged.
Our nation and our military deserve answers. I request a Chilcot-style inquiry so that we can learn the lessons of what went wrong. How did we squander the relative peace of the first four years? Why were the Taliban excluded from the peace talks in 2001—a fundamental error that could have brought stability early on? Why did we adopt an over-centralised western model of governance? Why were we too slow in building up Afghan security forces, up to a paltry 26,000 five years after the invasion? Why was Pakistan allowed to harbour and train the Taliban for so long? More widely, did the ease of the initial Afghan invasion lead to an over-confidence by the US for it to then invade Iraq, meaning that we had to fight on two fronts? Should we take responsibility for the Taliban’s emergence in the first place after the US abandoned Afghanistan once the Soviets had left? Where was the British thought leadership—our situational awareness that might have influenced US strategic thinking? As we have learned in Northern Ireland, you cannot defeat the enemy by military means alone.
If we depart completely, a dangerous part of the world becomes more dangerous as the Taliban assumes control of the bulk of the country and once again gives sanctuary to extremist groups. Our brave military served with honour, but they were let down by poor strategic judgments that if politicians today do not understand and learn from, will impede our confidence to step forward and stand up to extremism and authoritarianism in the future. There are so many questions and it is the Government’s duty to respond.
James Heappey
I thank my right hon. Friend for calling for this urgent question. I do not entirely share his analysis of what would have happened next. The relatively benign, by Afghan standards, security situation in the country at the moment is not the norm; it is the consequence of the accommodation that the US and the Taliban had come to last year. That means, in effect, that there are three options for the international community. One is to prepare for a fighting season this summer once the 1 May deadline expires. The second is to come to a new accommodation with the Taliban that effectively removes all of the political imperative to reaching a solution. The third is to agree that, effectively, the military mission is done and that what remains now is a political one, and the way to accelerate that is to force the hand and agree to leave as we have done.
My right hon. Friend asks some great questions about the route to being in Afghanistan and the prosecution of the campaign thereafter. I think that those of us who have served, as he has done, take some solace from the way that these things are considered deliberately after the event. It is not for me to agree to such an inquiry right now, but one would hope that the lessons would be learned. I do not necessarily accept all of his analysis of how the campaign has played out, but obviously we have reached the point where the military mission has effectively culminated and what remains is a requirement for politics. To keep our people there indefinitely with 1 May approaching does not seem to me to be the right use of the military instrument.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
The House will appreciate the Minister wanting to respond to this question himself. He saw two tours in Afghanistan and I know that more than 50 from his regiment were among the 454 British personnel who lost their lives there. We honour their service and their sacrifice.
There certainly have been some gains in governance, economic development, rights for women, education for girls and in ending Afghanistan as a base for terrorism abroad, but Afghanistan is more failure than success for the British military. Now, with the full withdrawal of NATO troops, it is hard to see a future without bloodier conflict, wider Taliban control, and greater jeopardy for those Afghanis who worked with the west and for the women now in political, judicial, academic and business roles. The Chief of the Defence Staff has said that this was
“not a decision we hoped for”.
Did the UK Government argue against full withdrawal? What steps will NATO allies take now to ensure that Afghanistan does not become a breeding ground for terrorism directed towards our western democracies again? There is US talk of over-the-horizon operations and of building anti-terrorist infrastructure on the periphery of Afghanistan. Will Britain play any part in this, and where?
The Minister said that Britain’s remaining 750 troops will be out by September. When will their withdrawal begin? How many UK contractors helping Afghan forces to maintain equipment are in Afghanistan? Will they withdraw at the same time as UK troops? How many Afghanis who helped British troops are still in Afghanistan, in danger and in need of the special scheme to settle in the UK? Ending military deployment should mean expanding diplomatic and development support, yet Britain cut direct aid to Afghanistan last year by a quarter. This year, will the Government reverse that cut?
Finally, where does this withdrawal leave the Government’s strategy of forward deployment in a region that sits between the three main state threats identified in the integrated review? Does this cause the Secretary of State to reconsider his decision to cut Army numbers by another 10,000?
James Heappey
First, I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his reflections on the service and sacrifice of the UK armed forces. I am not sure that I accept his characterisation of the situation as defeat. Many members of the armed forces will reflect, as I do, on their tactical and operational successes in their individual tours and in the districts for which they were responsible. If they arrive in a district and the school is shut, but when they leave, it is open; or if they arrive in a district and the market has six stalls, but when they leave, it has 20—those are the sorts of successes that show them with their own eyes that their service has been worth it and they have done good.
The shadow Secretary of State picks up on what the Chief of the Defence Staff said in his interview on the “Today” programme last week, and I do not think that anybody in the UK Government would shy away from his very honest assessment of what happened. I think we should be clear that the disagreement, to the extent that there was one, was over a matter of months, rather than over staying there for four years more.
As I said, there is a logic to this, because we were at a decision point no matter what. On 1 May, the accommodation would run out and we would be preparing for a fighting season; or we would need a new political accommodation with the Taliban, and that would remove the political imperative altogether; or we would take the decision, as the President did, and with which NATO subsequently agreed unanimously, to leave and, in doing so, to force the pace of the political process. I think that is the right thing. The opportunity to prosecute counter-terrorism missions from the wider region into Afghanistan is something that we are working up with our NATO allies and the Americans at the moment. I am sure that the UK will have a role in that.
The exact withdrawal timeline is not one that I intend to share publicly—I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will understand the operational security reasons why that is the case—but a withdrawal from Afghanistan this year is not unexpected. It was completely within our planning last year and over the winter. We can achieve the timeline that is required without any cost to our other planned military activities this summer. I can reassure him that my right hon. Friends the Defence Secretary and the Home Secretary are working with all appropriate haste to make sure that those who have served alongside us in Afghanistan are looked after in the future.
Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con)
I was in Afghanistan with the Afghan resistance, and I know that when the foreigners leave, the theological justification for jihad finishes. The problem we have is that Afghanistan still faces attack from the Taliban, fully supported by Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence, with the simple aim of conquering the country. Given the success since 2015 when the coalition moved into an advisory CT mode, what is the coalition’s plan now to prevent even larger swathes of the country from falling to the Taliban—indeed, to prevent Kabul itself from falling? If it does, I would call that strategic failure.
James Heappey
I share my hon. Friend’s assessment of the requirement for regional partners not only to step up and take a stake in Afghanistan’s peace, but to behave responsibly in the way they go about their diplomatic affairs in the region. His characterisation of what remains of the coalition is, if he does not mind my saying so, somewhat out of date. We have been down to a residual counter-terrorism mission for some time. For five years or more, the coalition has not extended its writ across the whole country. Actually, the Afghan national security forces have done a good job of maintaining security within the borders of Afghanistan since the NATO mission stepped back towards the current CT mission. I am full of optimism for what the Afghan national security forces could achieve. It depends, of course, on their being empowered to do so by a future Government in Kabul.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP) [V]
Like the Minister and the shadow Secretary of State, I pay tribute on behalf of the Scottish National party to all those who served, and of course, we remember all those who sadly lost their lives in Afghanistan.
All of us want the Government to get this right. I accept that there are no easy, clearcut, black and white ways forward, but I share some of the concern at the somewhat over-optimistic assessment that the Minister comes to the House with today. There is no absolute victory, of course—there is victory of sorts—but the peace is unstable. Governance is better, but it is still unstable, and the Taliban are not the outfit they once were, but they still pose a threat. The Chair of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), made some excellent points on how lessons are learned about what went wrong, because some things did. I return to the question he asked, which the Minister was not quite clear on: what is the Government’s view of a Chilcot-style inquiry? If we are all committed to getting this right, that is the kind of thing that surely needs to happen.
This might be the end of one of America’s forever wars, as it is sometimes known, but for Afghanistan, it remains immensely uncertain. What does the post-September relationship look like with the Afghan Government? I say this to the Minister on foreign aid. We can either have peace and stability in countries such as Afghanistan, or we can have foreign aid cuts; we cannot have both. If the Government are committed to a stable future for Afghanistan—which, in fairness, I believe they are—they need to reverse not just the cut that the shadow Secretary of State mentioned but the cut in its entirety across the foreign aid field.
Mr Speaker
May I remind the SNP spokesperson that he has one minute, not the more than two minutes that he has taken?
James Heappey
The hon. Gentleman is entirely right to ask what the mechanism is for solidifying the peace within Afghanistan, but I am not sure that I see what the international military presence would do to solidify that peace any further. What needs to happen now, as we have seen in Northern Ireland and many other conflicts in which we have been involved in the past, is this deeply imperfect and—for those of us who have served —uneasy reality that all parties, irrespective of the role they played in the conflict, need to come together and make the politics work. I think that the conditions are right for that to happen now.
I do not mean to sound over-optimistic. My eyes are wide open. I said in my answer that the future for Afghanistan is uncertain—of course it is. But there is a set of Afghan national security forces in place now that are capable of maintaining the peace, and I genuinely believe that there is a political will to achieve that and an expectation within the Afghan public that their politicians will achieve that.
How the lessons are learned from this campaign, as they were with Iraq, is for my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary to decide in due course. Of course, in everything we do in the Ministry of Defence, we look at what we have done, and where it worked, we reinforce, and where it did not work, we change. Within the integrated review, there is already a recognition that the way we have done our business in the last two decades may not be the way that we do it in the next.
On the hon. Gentleman’s final point about the relationship with the Afghan Government and the need to financially support them, as the Secretary-General of NATO said, this is not the end of our involvement in Afghanistan; it is just the start of a new chapter. That new chapter is one that remains every bit as committed to supporting the Afghan national Government, and this year alone the UK will spend up to £70 million on supporting the Afghan security forces. Such support—both diplomatic and financial—is key to ensuring the future that we envisage for Afghanistan in the absence of a military contribution.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Alongside its regular colleagues, the Territorial Army has served with distinction in Afghanistan, not least 21 Special Air Service Artists Rifles, which, as a formed unit, demonstrated its extreme gallantry by winning three Military Crosses in the fighting in Nad-e Ali in Helmand in 2008 as well as a Conspicuous Gallantry Cross at a later date. On the back of that highly distinguished record, will my hon. and gallant Friend retain the option to deploy the Army Reserve on live operations abroad, both as attachments to regular forces and in their own formed units?
James Heappey
Within the 150,000-plus service personnel who have served in Afghanistan, there will be many thousands of reservists who have mobilised and answered their nation’s call, and they have done so with great distinction, as my hon. Friend describes. He will be pleased to hear, I am sure, that the design of our armed forces for the next decades recognises absolutely the importance of the role that reservists play both as individuals, with the expertise that they bring to the force, and as formed units. There is every intention of building on their success in Iraq and Afghanistan as we look at how we use the reserves in the future.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Let us be quite honest about this: we are where we are today because the United States is going to do what it is going to do. Some of us will remember the scenes of Saigon in 1975, with people who had helped the US forces scrambling desperately to get on board the helicopters. Those who were left faced imprisonment and in some cases execution. So my question is very clear: the Minister and the shadow Secretary of State have touched on the fate of those Afghanis who have helped us—the translators and the like—but will we give them asylum and will we give them residency in the UK to thank them for what they have done? Let me go further: will we extend the same offer, because there is interchange, to those who helped the US forces if the United States refuses to do so?
James Heappey
The hon. Gentleman asks me a very straightforward question, and I hope I can give him a very straightforward answer. Between 1 May and the completion of the withdrawal in September, any attack on NATO troops will be responded to robustly. The withdrawal will happen in good order; there will be none of the scenes that he evokes from previous conflicts. The plans are well established, and I have every confidence in the ability of our military and the militaries of our allies to deliver them. He is quite right to raise our responsibility to those who have served alongside us. It is not for me to pre-empt the decision that is yet to be made by the Defence Secretary and the Home Secretary, but I can reassure him that they are both seized of our responsibility, and I know they are working with all appropriate haste to make sure that a solution is put in place.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con) [V]
I pay tribute to the service of my hon. Friend the Minister, with whom I served a lot in Afghanistan and a lot in the Ministry of Defence. May I just say that the work the NATO troops are currently doing in Afghanistan is hugely important—not because they are in combat operations, as the Minister rightly says, but because they are enabling the Afghan troops and supporting them with medical aid, logistics and so on? So while I recognise that this withdrawal cannot be avoided by the UK, because fundamentally it is a US decision, what assessment have he and his Department made of the implications for the responses of others? He will know that the perception that we may not endure on an operation, even when we are no longer in combat, will weaken the way we are seen by our enemies and may lead our allies to doubt us.
James Heappey
I think that our resolve has been tested and demonstrated by the longevity of the mission. We could arbitrarily say, “Well, if we were to stay for another 10 years or 20 years, that would even further show our resolve”. I think the alliance set itself a set of military objectives, which were broadly achieved. It is clear that the politics must now take over. My hon. Friend is entirely right to point, however, to the wider range of effort that goes on and the degree to which that underpins the operational effectiveness of the Afghan national security forces. Clearly the military presence within Afghanistan itself will come to an end, but our ability to remain connected to the Afghan military academy remotely is undiminished, and likewise our ability to host Afghan officers and NCOs on military courses in the UK. All of that will I think, first, help to strengthen the connections between the Afghan and UK armed forces, but secondly, help to continue to develop their capacity so that they sustain their own operations and ensure that there is a lasting peace within Afghanistan.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab) [V]
I do believe that the decision by the United States, ourselves and NATO to pull out military personnel at this stage will be wrong. I think it only gives succour to the Taliban. We do not have a stable situation in Afghanistan yet. Can I ask the Minister what support is being given to women during the peace process? He knows the importance of women within Afghan society, and their advancement is so important. What is he doing to give support to women to ensure that they have a strong platform and to ensure that things such as girls’ education are protected?
James Heappey
The hon. Gentleman picks up on one of the great successes of the intervention in Afghanistan: for 20 years schools have been open to girls, and the education of girls remains one of the Government’s key foreign policy aims. Around the world seldom are those aims underpinned by military effort, however, and there are two things from which we should take heart. First, there are now so many women, relatively speaking, within the Afghan institutions—its Parliament, academia and media—that there is an expectation within Afghan civil society that women and girls will have more rights than what they had to endure under the previous Taliban Government. Secondly, the Taliban want legitimacy within the international community if or when they become a part of a future Afghanistan Government. Therefore it is reasonable to expect that they will not want to be the international pariah that they were, so they will be responsive to the diplomatic efforts to promote opportunities for women and girls that we are pursuing bilaterally and through the United Nations and our alliances. I wholly expect that future Afghan Governments would not want to reverse all the great progress that has been made in this important area over the past 20 years.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
My hon. Friend speaks with great experience and knows of what he talks, but I am still struggling to understand precisely what the NATO strategy or plan is here. In addition to the great bravery and sacrifices of our own military, some very brave Afghan leaders, including women, believed that NATO would stay the course and will now feel very let down while the Taliban have little need to negotiate but increasingly will be in a very strong position. Does this not underline the very real limits of hard power and the importance of using soft power judiciously?
James Heappey
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. He is of course correct that the military could underpin an accommodation of sorts almost indefinitely, but that is not an enduring solution for any country. The decision NATO took last week recognises that we are at a moment of decision. The accommodation with the Taliban is coming to an end, so the decision is to extend the deal, which removes the political imperative, to fight this summer, and who knows where that would have gone—and from a position of having far fewer troops in Afghanistan than has been the case since five years ago—or to force the pace of the political settlement. All those options are imperfect, but what matters now, exactly as my right hon. Friend says, is that the Governments who have formed the alliance now use their soft power to ensure that the parties come round the table and an enduring peace is found.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab) [V]
Our withdrawal from Afghanistan was announced without a peace-day deal in place and with the security situation continuing to deteriorate. Many who fought in, and are still affected by, the conflict are wondering just what it was all for. We cannot allow either the Afghan security forces to be completely overrun or terrorist groups to re-establish training camps, so what operational capability will the Government make available to prevent this from happening?
James Heappey
The decision to draw down our military presence within Afghanistan has been announced, and I know that the hon. and gallant Member will appreciate that we will need over the next couple of months to work through the intricacies of what capabilities may endure in Afghanistan. However, it is clear that the United Kingdom will not tolerate an ungoverned space in Afghanistan from which international terrorism can find a base and from which attacks on the UK homeland or those of our allies can be mounted. A CT effort within the wider region will be required to counter that, and of course the alliance reserves the right to go back in if the security situation deteriorates to such an extent that our national security is threatened.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con) [V]
As we have heard, 457 brave men and women of our armed forces have paid with their lives to protect us here at home, and countless others have been wounded. I sincerely hope that their sacrifice has not been in vain. I seek my hon. and gallant Friend’s assurance that this withdrawal will not see a reluctance on our part to combat terrorism in the future, for, as Edmund Burke said so succinctly, the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
James Heappey
My hon. Friend is entirely right. I should be clear that, as I hope the integrated review made clear, the UK has an ambition to be a force for good in the world and that where terrorism threatens the UK’s interests or those of our allies, we will be present, building the capacity of partner forces and helping to remove that instability and insecurity around the world. What we have learnt over the past 20 years is that there are ways of doing that, and the vision we have set out in the integrated review is for a far more intelligent way of doing that: developing capacity, tackling insecurity and being a force for good around the world.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind) [V]
I am sure that we all pay tribute to the service and sacrifice of all those who served and of those who, sadly, lost their life. General Sir Nick Carter, Chief of the Defence Staff, said in a recent interview that although he respects the decision of the Biden Administration, it was
“not a decision we hoped for”.
Will the Minister confirm whether the MOD feels confident in the ability of the Afghan national security forces to defend the Afghan Government and their people without the current NATO presence in Afghanistan?
James Heappey
I fear that that question invites a reprise for all the answers I have already given, but, yes, the Afghan national security forces have the capacity to maintain peace within Afghanistan. The key is whether they are empowered to do so by a future Government in Kabul.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con) [V]
Does my hon. Friend agree that the United States should be a global neighbourhood watch in the middle east, not just a superpower that draws down the blinds? Does he share my grave concern, and that of many colleagues, that the withdrawal of troops will boost Sunni extremism, not just in Afghanistan, but in Iraq, where the Sunni ISIS death cult threatens Iraq and Kurdistan? Will he consider gifting surplus military and medical kit to the Iraqi Kurds in Kurdistan, rather than leaving it in Afghanistan?
James Heappey
IS and the Taliban are no friends, and I suspect that that will moderate the march of IS in Afghanistan. My right hon. Friend invites me to set out how we might gift the equipment we have been using in Afghanistan. Some of it will be gifted to the Afghan national security forces. Where we have critical capabilities that we want to recover to the UK, we will of course do that. Whether or not those are in due course re-gifted in other theatres is a decision for us to take over the next few months, but I note his suggestion.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
I think we are all aware that the risks in Afghanistan remain and are significant, and although over the past decade they have metastasised through different iterations and dispersed through the region, they still have significant roots in Afghan territories. So how will the Minister ensure that the strategic expertise brought by our armed forces’ soft power can be utilised to reduce the risk of the resurgence of violence and to support the Afghan security forces for as long as they require us?
James Heappey
The institutional connections between the UK Ministry of Defence and our armed forces, and the Afghan Ministry of Defence and armed forces are as strong as one would expect them to be, given that those relationships have been forged in combat over the past 20 years. As I said in response to an earlier question, there is every intent to continue to mentor the Afghan national security forces and MOD remotely, and to continue our involvement in the Afghan national military academy remotely, and of course to give the opportunity to Afghan officers and non-commissioned officers to attend courses in the UK that will maintain those connections and develop their capability.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con) [V]
I pay tribute to my hon. and gallant Friend for his service. Some three years ago, I had the privilege of visiting Kabul and seeing the Welsh Guards serve in Afghanistan and contribute to the building of a civic and civil society in the community. Given the fragility of that society, what tangible steps does my hon. Friend propose to take, as we leave Afghanistan by September, to ensure that the steps taken in recent years are not lost?
James Heappey
My right hon. Friend has seen with his own eyes the good work that has happened. As I said in response to the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), there are opportunities to maintain those connections even without a physical presence on the ground. I have every confidence that we will do so. This is not just about politics and ministerial decision making; there are friendships between our armed forces that mean that the UK armed forces and UK MOD want to see the Afghan army, the Afghan security forces and the Afghan MOD succeed in the future. We will do everything we can to maintain those connections and develop capabilities so that the green shoots that my right hon. Friend saw can grow.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
May I add my tribute to all those who served and those who tragically lost their lives? I visited Helmand in 2009, when I believe the Minister was on his second tour, and I saw at first hand the bravery, dedication and professionalism of our armed forces and all those who worked with them in extraordinary circumstances. That will never be forgotten. They did make a difference.
The Minister mentioned those who are living with life-changing injuries, including some of those he served with. Of course, those injuries are not just physical; tragically, there are mental health consequences for many, and there are also issues with housing, access to public services and so on. Will he give a cast-iron guarantee that we will continue to meet our debt of obligation to all those who served in Afghanistan, whether it is with respect to their physical health, their mental health, their housing or other needs, for as long as that is necessary?
James Heappey
I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for his question. Yes, the Ministry of Defence and Her Majesty’s Government will continue to meet that obligation. One of the things that came out of the conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan was huge public recognition of the debt that we owe to our armed forces, and a recognition of the sacrifice and the commitment that they make on behalf of our nation. It is absolutely incumbent on those of us who now have the honour of making policy in Government to ensure that we live up to those obligations and that our veterans of Afghanistan, Iraq and all other conflicts are properly looked after.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
I pay tribute to my hon. and gallant Friend and, indeed, all those who served with distinction in Afghanistan. Clearly, the economy of Afghanistan—in particular the farming community—will be vital to preserving peace and security in the region. Will my hon. Friend update the House on what will be done to encourage farmers to develop products and crops rather than feeding the illegal drugs trade, which has caused so much damage not only to the region but to the rest of the world?
James Heappey
My hon. Friend has taken me well out of my comfort zone. If he will indulge me, I might need to write to him.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
I, too, pay tribute to all the veterans of the Afghanistan conflict, a number of whom are residents at the Cranhill Scottish Veteran Residences complex in my constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) was right to link this issue back to the decision to cut foreign aid. The Minister should not just listen to him; James Cowan, the chief executive officer of the HALO Trust and a former commander of British troops in Afghanistan, said:
“I have seen first-hand the importance of foreign aid. But the prime minister has announced a £4 billion cut in UK aid – money that is vital not only to the wellbeing of vulnerable people worldwide, but also British national security”.
He is not wrong, is he?
James Heappey
This issue has been touched on in previous questions. There is a commitment to spend up to £70 million in Afghanistan this year alone in support of the Afghan security forces, and of course there is an aid package beyond that. Very obviously, the end of our military contribution in Afghanistan does not mean the end of our wider diplomatic and development agenda in the country, and I fully expect that the UK Government will maintain that commitment so that we can do our bit in helping Afghanistan to succeed in the future.
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con) [V]
This nation has a proud record, as indeed do many Members of this House, of responding to need around the globe. Decisions to get involved are not taken lightly. Questions of purpose and measures of success are rarely clearcut, and they always come at a cost. We have already heard that, for 454 British troops in Afghanistan, it was the ultimate sacrifice. For many more, including veterans and families that I have met here in Aberconwy, it is something they continue to carry day by day. Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to the veterans of the conflict in Afghanistan and their families? What assurance can he give them that their work and their sacrifices will be remembered?
James Heappey
This Government, and indeed our nation, place huge importance on our duty to remember the sacrifice of those who have given their lives in the service of our nation around the world. I have every confidence that we will continue to do so, and when we reach remembrance events in the autumn I think people will be particularly focused on the end of our military operations in Afghanistan and the sacrifice made there.
Beyond that, I hope that Afghanistan veterans such as myself and six other Members of the House will reflect on their personal experiences in that country and on the good that they know they did and that they saw with their own eyes. Cumulatively across the whole country over 20 years that amounted to an environment in which the Afghan Government could establish itself and grow and in which civil society could flourish. We have set the conditions within which Afghanistan has the chance of a peaceful and secure future.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I join the Minister in paying tribute to all those who were deployed to Afghanistan, and it is right that we remember today the 457 who paid the ultimate price, as well as those who are now living with life-changing injuries. I first visited Afghanistan in 2003, and then on numerous occasions up until 2010, and the Minister is correct to highlight the success stories. One of those is the Afghan security forces, and Britain can be quietly proud of the work it did at the Kabul officer academy in developing that force. However, operationally, the Afghan security forces are dependent on allied air power, so will Minister highlight whether there are any plans to give that air support once we withdraw?
James Heappey
Clearly, the announcement was that there will be no military presence in Afghanistan. Air support can come from outwith Afghanistan, and I suspect that decisions on that would be based on the security situation at the time. However, I think that the priority of all in NATO is to force the pace of a political settlement, which our departure does. What we should all hope for is a successful political outcome, where the capabilities that the right hon. Gentleman draws our attention to would not be required.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
Will my hon. and gallant Friend tell the House how confident the Government are that the peace negotiations will bring the right governance and security to Afghanistan by September and, in particular, that women will continue to have rights under a future regime? Only in the last few months, several women have been targeted for assassination, apparently by the Taliban. The treatment of women under the Taliban was totally unacceptable, and as the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on women, peace and security, I do not want to see any reversal of women’s rights in Afghanistan, but I am afraid I do not share the Minister’s optimistic outlook on this issue.
James Heappey
I thank my hon. Friend for her question and for her work in chairing the APPG, to which I think my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Middle East and North Africa and I will present the annual report in the coming weeks. The work on this issue is important and characterises so much of our contribution to conflicts. My hon. Friend will be aware that 3.7 million girls are now in school—a huge step forward from zero, which was previously the case. There is an expectation in Afghan society that is far more powerful than any military stick that may be wielded, and one can only hope that that is irreversible. The genie is out of the bottle, and once women and girls have that expectation and it becomes the norm in society, it is awfully hard—even for the Taliban—to reverse it.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab) [V]
The allies’ withdrawal from Afghanistan is causing deep concern for those who placed their lives on the line as invaluable interpreters for British forces. We know that the Taliban will exact revenge on those who supported the alliance, so what steps are Ministers taking now to fulfil our responsibility and our promises to ensure that the remaining interpreters and the families of those who are already here—I still have ongoing constituency cases where there are problems—are rescued? This is about honouring our promises.
James Heappey
I hope that the hon. Lady will have taken some reassurance from my earlier answers on the work of the Defence Secretary and the Home Secretary. I am sure that they will come forward with an answer imminently.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the locally employed civilians throughout Afghanistan, who were a vital help during our deployments? Colleagues have asked questions about interpreters and their safety, and I was pleased by his answer that, during the drawdown, people who had helped our forces will not be abandoned. However, once we have left, will he give us some assurance that all the many hundreds of locally employed civilians and the interpreters—the people who have risked their lives, their family’s lives and their safety—will not be abandoned?
James Heappey
I refer my hon. Friend to my previous answer. I have seen with my own eyes just how integral those locally employed civilians were to the success of our mission. We owe them a debt. There is work going on in Government to make sure that that debt is paid.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
There are no easy answers in Afghanistan and I pay tribute to the service of personnel who have worked so hard to bring peace to the country. I reiterate the SNP’s strong support for a Chilcot-style inquiry into our engagement in Afghanistan to learn the lessons. On aid, we regret deeply the cuts to the aid budget, but I do not doubt the Minister’s sincerity and commitment to Afghanistan. Would he accept and agree with our call to exempt Afghanistan from any cuts to the wider aid budget, because now is precisely the time to step up that support, not scale it back?
James Heappey
I know that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I refrain from making policy on the hoof at the Dispatch Box, but the suggestion is noted, and, as I have made clear in previous answers, it is clear that the removal of the military instrument does not bring with it an end to our commitment in Afghanistan. I am confident that my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary will be listening to the contributions about the importance of making sure that we continue to support an Afghan civil society and military to underpin the peace that we all hope for.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con) [V]
Improvements in Afghanistan’s society, such as to girls’ education, are welcome and, as the Minister said, show signs of an improved future for Afghanistan’s people. However, freedom of religion or belief remains severely curtailed. Does he share my concerns about that, and what can be done to address it?
James Heappey
Afghanistan is a deeply Islamic and conservative country. As my hon. Friend will know from the amazing work that she does as the Prime Minister’s special enjoy for freedom of religion or belief, those countries are hard ones in which to espouse the values that she so enthusiastically campaigns for. I know that she will keep all the pressure that she can on the Prime Minister and my colleagues in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. She is absolutely right that this is a very important hallmark of a free democracy, and we should have every expectation that the sort of things that she would want to see are things that we are comfortable and enthusiastic about discussing with Afghan Governments in future.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab) [V]
Can the Minister give specific examples of actions that the Government now intend to take as we withdraw from Afghanistan to support and ensure that all the improvements that have been taking place over the past 20 years in the human rights of women and girls, such as access to education and healthcare, will not be reduced or reversed?
James Heappey
I can. The bilateral relationship between the UK Government and the Afghan Government will endure, and so, too, will our engagement through multilateral forums such as the UN. These are hard-won steps that have made Afghanistan a better country. Our expectation must be that nobody involved in the peace process would want to row back from those, and the international community must be united in ensuring that they do not.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
As we draw down our forces in Afghanistan, the United Kingdom can look proudly at the contribution that we have made to supporting and developing the local security forces. Because our military contribution ends, that training and assistance need not, so will my hon. and gallant Friend confirm that, moving forward, we will continue to offer support and training to the Afghan security forces, including, for example, by posting cadets at Sandhurst?
James Heappey
That is exactly the sort of support that we envisage. The agreement is that there will be no military presence within Afghanistan, but that does not diminish in the slightest our ability to continue to have a strong relationship with the Afghan national security forces and to develop their capability either from the outside in or by bringing them to study and train in the United Kingdom.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind) [V]
I congratulate the Chair of the Defence Committee, the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), on securing this question and on his excellent contribution, because whatever way the British Government try to present it, the unconditional withdrawal from Afghanistan is a humiliation. No parliamentary vote was held to authorise the invasion 20 years ago, nor was democratic endorsement sought for the disastrous escalation of UK involvement in Helmand province. Is it not time that it was enshrined in law that major military engagements and significant escalations of conflict must be endorsed by this House and, I would argue, when Welsh troops are involved, by the Senedd as well?
James Heappey
That last point is clearly somewhat problematic. People from across the United Kingdom serve in our units and they serve as the UK’s armed forces. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman knows how impractical his suggestion is, but perhaps he is playing to an audience back home.
As for the hon. Gentleman’s earlier point, it would be impractical in the extreme for all operational decisions, some of which have to be taken with some haste, to be a matter for a vote in this House. The detail that underpins those decisions often cannot be fully shared at the Dispatch Box, for obvious reasons. The Government have, throughout, made every effort to be transparent about the way the Afghanistan campaign has been progressing. I remember there being regular updates to the House on it and the opportunity for Ministers to be held to account, but I am not sure that military planning by parliamentary vote is necessarily the way to show the coherence of the military instrument to our adversaries overseas.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
I am concerned that, with the drawdown of our troops, Afghanistan could again become a centre and base for international terrorism. Can my hon. Friend update the House on the steps we are taking to mitigate that risk?
James Heappey
I suspect that I have answered that question a few times over the last hour. This is simply the end of military operations in Afghanistan; it is not the end of the UK’s commitment to that country. Everybody is clear on that. So, too, are our partners and allies around NATO and beyond. The international effort to deliver peace and security within Afghanistan continues; it is just no longer appropriate to seek to achieve that through military means.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP) [V]
There are many who would say that the Taliban control a huge swathe of Afghanistan, and that this decision will mean that the Afghan security forces could be overrun. Will the Minister advise us, as an Afghan veteran? I pay tribute to that service, as I do to all the other veterans, including my own brother, Ronnie, who served two tours in Afghanistan. Can the Minister answer the question that many of them will be asking today: why oh why were they there in the first place, if we have not achieved what we intended to?
James Heappey
I do not accept that we have not achieved what we were there to do in the first place. We went into Afghanistan as a direct consequence of what happened on 11 September 2001. Article 5 was invoked because an attack on one was an attack on us all, and that attack originated in Afghanistan. Since then, there has been no international terrorist attack launched from Afghanistan on the UK, the US or, indeed, any other NATO ally, so in that sense the mission was achieved.
Actually, the mission has gone far further, as we have explored in our exchanges on the urgent question: in the 20 years that we have been there, we have given the opportunity for the Afghan Government to establish and strengthen and for an Afghan civil society to flourish. I truly believe that we have set the conditions within which a political process now has the best chances of success.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I know that the Minister will take back the very strong feelings expressed on both sides of the House that interpreters and other locally employed civilians must not be abandoned to a terrible fate at the hands of our enemies.
When the Minister says that the military process is over, does he not realise that the only thing that will prevent the Taliban from going back to the position they were in before we intervened 20 years will be the threat that if they try to overthrow the Government, they themselves will face a military consequence—if necessary, from outside the borders of the country? If he rules that out, he is basically giving them carte blanche.
James Heappey
As my right hon. Friend will know from his extensive experience of peace processes around the world, it is very likely—indeed, almost certain—that a lasting peace settlement in Afghanistan will involve the Taliban as part of the Afghan Government. It is in all our interests to support the political process as it plays out, but if there is a return to an ungoverned space that gives succour to international terrorism that is a threat to the UK homeland or the interests of our allies, we of course reserve the right to protect our interests, both unilaterally and multilaterally through NATO.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the Minister for responding to the urgent question and answering 31 questions.
We are now going to suspend for a short while.
Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Equalities (Kemi Badenoch)
With permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on our work to examine inequality across the population and set out a new, positive agenda for change.
The Government are committed to building a fairer Britain and taking the action needed to promote equality and opportunity for all. We do, however, recognise that serious disparities exist across our society, and are determined to take the action that is required to addressed them. Following the events of last summer, our nation has engaged in a serious examination of the issue of race inequality, and the Government have been determined to respond by carefully examining the evidence and data. We need to recognise progress where it has been made, but we also need to tackle barriers where they remain. That was why, last summer, the Prime Minister established the independent Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities. It was tasked with informing our national conversation on race by carrying out a deeper examination of why disparities exist and considering how we can reduce them.
After careful study, the commission made evidence-based recommendations for action across Government, the private sector and other public bodies. The commission was established with 10 experts drawn from a variety of fields, spanning science, education, economics, broadcasting, medicine and policing. With one exception, all are from ethnic minority backgrounds. The chair, Dr Sewell, has dedicated his life to education and to supporting young people from socially deprived backgrounds to reach their full potential. This distinguished group was tasked with reviewing inequality in the UK, and it focused on education, employment, crime and policing, and health.
As this House will be aware, on 31 March, the commission published its independent report. I will now turn to its findings. It is right to say that the picture painted by this report is complex, particularly in comparison with the way that issues of race are often presented. The report shows that disparities do persist, that racism and discrimination remain a factor in shaping people’s life outcomes, and it is clear about the fact that abhorrent racist attitudes continue in society, within institutions and increasingly online. It calls for action to tackle this.
However, the report also points out that, while disparities between ethnic groups exist across numerous areas, many factors other than racism are often the root cause. Among these are geography, deprivation and family structure. For example, a black Caribbean child is 10 times more likely than an Indian child to grow up in a lone parent household. Disparities exist in different directions. People from south Asian and Chinese ethnic groups have better outcomes than the white population in more than half of the top 25 causes of premature death.
The report also highlights the progress that Britain has made in tackling racism, and the report’s data reveal a range of success stories. For example, it underlines the significant progress achieved in educational attainment, with most ethnic minority groups now outperforming their white British peers at GCSE level. The report also delves into the causes and drivers of some of the most persistent and enduring issues. For example, the commission has identified the disproportionate rate of black men convicted of class B drug offences.
Let me be clear: the report does not deny that institutional racism exists in the UK. Rather the report did not find conclusive evidence of it in the specific areas it examined. It reaffirms the Macpherson report’s definition of the term, but argues that it should be applied more carefully and always based on evidence.
The commission made 24 evidence-based and practical recommendations. These have been grouped into four broad themes: to build trust; promote fairness; create agency; and achieve inclusivity.
There are many things that unite this House. A shared commitment to making Britain fairer for everyone is one of them. In the light of that fact, I urge right hon. and hon. Members to take the time to read the report’s 258 pages. There is also another thing that I am sure unites this House, which is abhorrence of the appalling abuse meted out to the commissioners and the false assertions made about their work in the past three weeks. It is true that this landmark analysis challenges a number of strongly held beliefs about the extent and influence of racism in Britain today. The commissioners have followed the evidence and drawn conclusions that challenge orthodoxy, and they were prepared for a robust and constructive debate. However, they were not prepared for the wilful misrepresentation of the report that occurred following its publication, such as false accusations that they denied racism exists, or that they wished to put a positive spin on the atrocities of slavery, or false statements that commissioners did not read or sign off their own report, or that they are breaking ranks. I have been informed by the chair and by individual members that the commission remains united and stands by its report.
This Government welcome legitimate disagreement and debate, but firmly reject bad-faith attempts to undermine the credibility of this report. Doing so risks undermining the vital work that we are trying to do to understand and address the causes of inequality in the UK, and any other positive work that results from it. For that reason it is necessary to set the record straight. This report makes it clear that the UK is not a post-racial society and that racism is still a real force that has the power to deny opportunity and painfully disrupt lives. That is why the first recommendation of the commission is to challenge racist and discriminatory actions. The report calls on the Government to increase funding to the Equality and Human Rights Commission to make greater use of
“its compliance, enforcement and litigation powers to challenge policies or practices that…cause…unjust racial disadvantage, or arise from racial discrimination.”
The Government even more firmly condemn the deeply personal and racialised attacks against the commissioners, which have included death threats. In fact, one Opposition Member presented commissioners as members of the Ku Klux Klan—an example of the very online racial hatred and abuse on which the report itself recommended more action be taken by the Government.
It is, of course, to be expected that Members will disagree about how to address racial inequality and the kinds of policies that the Government should enact. However, it is wrong to accuse those who argue for a different approach of being racism deniers or race traitors. It is even more irresponsible—dangerously so—to call ethnic minority people racial slurs like “Uncle Toms”, “coconuts”, “house slaves” or “house negroes” for daring to think differently.
Such deplorable tactics are designed to intimidate ethnic minority people away from their right to express legitimate views. This House depends on robust debate and diversity of thought. Too many ethnic minority people have to put up with this shameful treatment every day, as some of my fellow MPs and I know too well. The House should condemn it and reprimand those who continue with such behaviour.
The commissioners’ experience since publication only reinforces the need for informed debate on race based on mutual respect and a nuanced understanding of the evidence. The Government will now consider the report in detail and assess the next steps for future policy. In recognition of the extensive scope of recommendations, the Prime Minister has established a new inter-ministerial group to review the recommendations. It will ensure that action is taken to continue progress to create a fairer society. As sponsoring Minister, I will provide strategic direction with support from my officials in the Race Disparity Unit. The group will be chaired by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
On that note, on behalf of the Prime Minister, I would like to thank the commissioners once again for all that they have done. They have generously volunteered their time, unpaid, to lead this important piece of work, and the Government welcome their thoughtful, balanced and evidence-based findings and analysis.
The Government will now work at pace to produce a response to the report this summer. I assure the House that it will be ambitious about tackling negative disparities where they exist and building on successes. It will play a significant part in this Government’s mission to level up and unite the country, and ensure equality and opportunity for all, whatever their race, ethnicity or socioeconomic background. I commend this statement to the House.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement. It is only right that such a contentious report finally receives time for debate in this House. I have read the report, despite having to wait two weeks for an accessible version to arrive.
Following the Black Lives Matter movement, the commission had an opportunity meaningfully to engage with structural racism in the UK. Instead, it published incoherent, divisive and offensive materials that appear to glorify slavery, downplay the role of institutional and structural racism, and blame ethnic minorities for their own disadvantage. If left unchallenged, the report will undo decades of progress made towards race equality in the UK.
Since publication, the report has completely unravelled. Far from bad-faith actors, this report has been discredited by experts, including the British Medical Association, Professor Michael Marmot, trade unions representing over 5 million workers, human rights experts at the UN and Baroness Lawrence, who said it gives a “green light to racists”. Its cherry-picking of data is misleading and incoherent, and its conclusions are ideologically motivated and divisive.
It is absolutely clear to all Opposition Members and those across civil society that this report has no credibility, so I am disappointed to hear the Minister double down on it here today. How can she stand before us in this House and defend the indefensible? I want to ask one simple question to start: who wrote this report? Four weeks ago, she stood at the Dispatch Box and said:
“It is not the Prime Minister but an independent commission that will be publishing the report.”—[Official Report, 24 March 2021; Vol. 691, c. 906.]
Despite what she says about unity, can she explain why multiple commissioners have disclosed that No. 10 rewrote parts of the report? What precedent does this cronyism set for future independent commissions? Furthermore, will the Minister explain how the Government came to publish claims that there is a “new story” to be told about slavery and empire, and will she distance herself from those abhorrent remarks?
The Minister says that commissioners followed the evidence, but this report marks a major shift away from the overwhelming body of data on institutional and structural racism. The Office for National Statistics finds that the unemployment rate for black people is now 13.8%—triple the rate for white people—so why does the report conclude that young black people should
“examine the subjects they are studying”,
instead of addressing the systemic inequalities within the labour market? Black women are four times more likely to die in pregnancy and childbirth, but the report says that these numbers are so low that it is “unfair” to focus on this disparity. Does the Minister agree with those findings? Even the example about class B drug use, which she repeated today, is inaccurate, with the Cabinet Office admitting that there was a mistake. I was especially interested to hear the Minister highlight the recommendation to increase funding to the EHRC, given that her Government have slashed its funding by £43 million since 2010.
This report is part of the story that Government Members would like to try to tell about fairness. They say that they are interested in addressing inequalities of geography and class, but the truth is that they are not interested in ending inequality at all. In stark contrast, the Labour party believes in ambition and potential for all, including black and ethnic minority people, but we recognise that we often start from a position of systemic disadvantage.
It is our job as elected representatives to level the playing field, so I want to end by giving the Minister the chance to reject this report and tell the House instead what she is doing to implement the 231 recommendations in the Timpson, McGregor-Smith, Williams, Angiolini and Lammy reviews. What is she doing to comply with the public sector equality duty, and why is she not publishing equality impact assessments? This is what her Government would be focused on if they were serious about ending structural racism. Instead, they have published a shoddy, point-scoring polemic which ignores evidence and does not represent the country that I know and love. It is reprehensible, and I hope the Minister will reject it today, so that we get on with the task of tackling institutional and structural racism, which is the lived experience of many.
Kemi Badenoch
It is quite clear that the hon. Lady did not read the statement, which I sent to her in advance, and she clearly did not listen to it as I read it out. She is clearly determined to create a divisive atmosphere around race in this House and this country, and we will not stand for it. We continue to push for a fairer Britain and for levelling up. Labour Members continue to look for division. They continue to stoke culture wars and then claim that we are the ones fighting them.
I completely reject all the assertions that the hon. Lady has made—many of them false and many of them hypocritical. Whose party has been determined to be institutionally racist by the Equality and Human Rights Commission? It is not my party; it is hers. She and many of her colleagues are the ones who are complaining about their party’s Forde inquiry and claiming that their party has anti-black racism. Why do they not look at resolving the problems in their own house, instead of trying to spread them around the rest of the country?
I will acknowledge some of the questions the hon. Lady has raised and seek to answer them. She asked who wrote the report. The commissioners wrote the report; that is because they were independent. It is simply not true to claim that other people wrote the report. The commissioners have put statements on the—[Interruption.] I am afraid I cannot hear myself speak because of the hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler). It would be nice if she stopped heckling from a sedentary position. Her mouth is covered, so I cannot even hear what she is saying.
If we look at the statements that the commissioners have made on the gov.uk website, they have been united. They have not broken ranks. They have not chosen to dissociate themselves from the report. The only thing that is happening is that Labour Members in particular continue to misrepresent what is happening. Why, for instance, will the shadow Minister not condemn the racist abuse faced by the commissioners? Why will she not condemn her own colleague, the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis), who posted a picture of the KKK in response to the commissioners? Does she think that that is appropriate behaviour? It is the subject of a complaint to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.
We should go back to the substance of what this report is saying, rather than continuing to try to slander the people who have written it. These are professionals and distinguished individuals who gave up their time, and I commend them for their work. I am very proud of it, and of course we will not be withdrawing the report.
It is clear that today’s Labour party is functionally innumerate and does not like to see statistics and evidence, so rather than focus on the numbers and the data, they run away. They just want to continue having discussions on racism, which is where they think they are strong, but I am afraid that they are not strong on this issue. We will not sit back and allow divisive rhetoric and misrepresentation to be the story on race. We are determined to create a positive national conversation about this issue based on facts and evidence, fraternity and fairness, not on nonsensical accusations.
So I reject the hon. Member for Battersea’s assertions. We will not withdraw the report. We will look at what recommendations to take forward. The Government have still not provided a response, but there are many issues around that structural inequality that we want to have dealt with. However, I reiterate that, just because there is a disparity, it does not mean that discrimination is the cause. If we continue to identify discrimination right from the beginning without looking at the root cause, we will continue to offer solutions that do not improve the situation. I am very happy to commend the commissioners and I reject the hon. Lady’s very divisive rhetoric and assertions to the House today.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
The House and the country will be glad that the Government have come forward with this positive statement in support of Tony Sewell’s and the other commissioners’ report.
The commission had to put out a statement on 2 April contradicting most of the ill-informed criticisms. At the end, it said:
“The 24 recommendations we have made will, in our view, greatly improve the lives of millions of people for the better if they are all implemented.”
The second sentence of the first paragraph said that the report
“stated categorically that ‘we take the reality of racism seriously and we do not deny that it is a real force in the UK.’”
That seems plain and clear.
I came into politics in 1971, when the ethnic minorities in the area where I lived in south London were denied the chance to take O-levels because left-wing goodies asked why people should be forced to take O-levels in the fifth form. I said it was so that they could go on to university. With two West Indian mothers on the governing body, within three years, the first of our black pupils went on to medical school. I think we can dedicate ourselves to making life better.
I say to the Minister that later—not today—I would like to come and talk to her about the treatment of Gurpal Virdi, a very good Sikh officer who four times was badly treated by the Metropolitan police. The fourth time, he was prosecuted for a week and a half for something that could not have happened, following an investigation that should not have happened.
That is one of the things that would help to give weight to the recommendations of the Sewell commission —if things are treated fairly, when they go wrong, they are investigated properly.
Kemi Badenoch
I thank the Father of the House for his question and for his comments, which I completely agree with. The issue he describes around education back in the day is actually something I experienced myself. There is still much to do, but we have come a long way from 25 years ago when I first immigrated to this country. On Gurpal Virdi, I am happy to meet my hon. Friend to fully understand what happened and to see what the Government can do.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP) [V]
I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement. A United Nations working group strongly rejected this report, saying that it
“further distorted and falsified historic facts”,
could fuel racism and twists data, among other pointed criticisms. The Minister just spoke about the lack of evidence of institutional racism, but the Runnymede Trust rightly points out that evidence of institutional racism was submitted to the commission. Twenty thousand people joined the Runnymede Trust and Amnesty International in calling for the report’s withdrawal, and 36 trade union general secretaries have repudiated the report.
In contrast to the Prime Minister, who said that the report contains “interesting observations”, Scots campaigner Talat Yaqoob called the report a “whitewash of reality” produced only to let the UK Government abdicate responsibility for tackling institutional racism. How can the Minister justify a report that says policies such as the hostile environment were not deliberately targeted at the UK’s ethnic minorities? Leading clinicians have said the report will worsen systemic health inequalities. The NHS Race and Health Observatory has declared that institutional racism exists in the UK, the health and care system and across wider public bodies. In the light of those responses, will the Minister repudiate the report’s glossing over of the impact of covid on ethnic minority groups?
The SNP will always work hard for Scotland to be a global leader in diversity and inclusion. If re-elected, we will introduce a Scottish diversity and inclusion strategy, focusing on institutional barriers and providing education on colonial history. The Scottish Tory manifesto is silent on these issues, but in bringing forward this report, it certainly looks like the UK Government are going in the opposite direction. So can the Minister tell us specifically what the Tories are doing to tackle institutional inequality and to deal effectively with colonial history? Can she understand why so many people will be deeply disappointed with this response, which feels, at best, like a bunch of cans being kicked down the road?
Kemi Badenoch
Before I begin to answer the hon. Lady’s questions, I would like to point out that the PM wrote to devolved Administrations shortly after the commission was established to invite them to engage with this work. It is noticeable that Northern Ireland was keen to take part, and hosted the commission on crime and policing matters. However, the Scottish National party Administration did not engage, so I believe that the words the hon. Lady is now saying about how dedicated they are to fighting racial inequality are completely hollow. When the commission was set up, I am afraid that they did very little indeed to engage.
Regarding the statement by the UN experts, the group grossly misrepresented the commission’s report; the statement is clearly born of the divisive narratives perpetrated by certain media outlets and political groups that are seeking to sow division in our ethnic minority communities. It is also quite clear that the UN experts did not read the commission’s report, judging from some of their statements, which seem to have been cut and pasted from a Labour party press release. The obvious flaw in their critique is that there is no comparison to be drawn with peer countries in Europe, especially because they do not even collect data on race and ethnicity. As such, I share the commission’s disappointment in, and rejection of, yesterday’s statement by the working group of experts on people of African descent, and I will be writing back to them in the strongest of terms.
It is no surprise that the hon. Lady has listed a lot of left-wing groups that disagree with the report. Disagreement and debate is part of politics. We have no issues with people disagreeing with the substance of the report; what we do have an issue with is people misrepresenting it. This report was tasked with finding out why disparities exist. It was not supposed to define where exactly we are seeing institutional racism, but to call racism out where it exists, and it did that. Perhaps if the hon. Lady spent some time reading the report, rather than remarks on Twitter, she would be better informed about what it actually says.
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)
The chief economist of the Bank of England has said that
“Published pay gaps are a starting point for corporate and national accountability”.
Business groups have called for mandatory reporting of ethnicity pay gaps. The commission recommended investigating the causes of pay disparities, but then did not recommend mandating the reporting that would identify those disparities, so will the Minister now commit to taking a different approach from the commission, and commit to mandatory reporting of ethnicity pay gaps?
Kemi Badenoch
I thank my right hon. Friend for her question, and I pay tribute to her for setting up the Race Disparity Unit, which has allowed us to carry out so much forensic research.
On the issue of ethnicity pay reporting, the commission pointed to statistical and data issues that affect ethnicity pay reporting, and makes a recommendation as a way for employers to overcome these challenges and report ethnicity pay accurately. As I say, the Government will consider the report in detail, and we will work with colleagues in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to assess the implications of this recommendation for future Government policy and respond in due course. However, I take my right hon. Friend’s comments into account, and will make sure that they are addressed in the Government response.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab) [V]
The Minister has accused people of criticising the report in bad faith. Is she really saying that Professor Michael Marmot, a world-renowned expert in public health, is acting out of bad faith? Is she really saying that the British Medical Association and other professional associations are speaking in bad faith? It would reflect better on the Minister if she were prepared to engage with genuine criticism by experts.
Nobody denies that there has been progress on racial justice in this country. My parents left school in rural Jamaica aged 14; I am a British Member of Parliament. However, this is widely seen—particularly by people who have been quoted and misquoted—as a shoddy, cynical report that, to quote the UN working group,
“repackages racist tropes and stereotypes into fact, twisting data”.
I say to the Minister that surely black and brown British people who have contributed so much to this country deserve better than this report.
Kemi Badenoch
What black and brown British people like myself deserve is better treatment from the Opposition Members who continue to stoke division. Of course I am not accusing Professor Sir Michael Marmot or the BMA of bad faith. The people I accuse of acting in bad faith are the right hon. Lady and her colleagues who are posting pictures of the KKK, and being advertised, as the shadow equalities Minister was, at an event preparing to denounce the report a week before it was even published.
On Professor Sir Michael Marmot and the British Medical Association, I have had meetings with them and we engage with them. We take criticism from them—they are not there to endorse every single thing the Government say; they are there to provide helpful criticism and suggestions where necessary. Sometimes we agree, and sometimes we disagree. Disagreement is not a problem. What we do not want is misrepresentation, which is what the right hon. Lady and her colleagues continue to do.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Before I call Caroline Nokes, may I remind everybody, whether they are virtual or physical, that this is an opportunity to ask the Minister questions about the statement, not to make speeches?
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con) [V]
I thank my hon. Friend for her statement. She has focused a great deal on evidence. Does she agree that narrative is also important, and that when the Government respond, it is essential that they do so in full to the 24 recommendations and get the tone right? The Women and Equalities Committee has invited Tony Sewell to come and give evidence to us, alongside other commissioners. I hope my hon. Friend will encourage him to do so, so that the Committee can hear at first hand the evidence that was presented to him and how the report was written.
Kemi Badenoch
I thank my right hon. Friend for her question. I agree with her that narrative is important, not just evidence. We in this House have to ask ourselves what story we are trying to tell. In the case of Conservative Members, it is a story of a shared history, shared values, shared culture and a shared future. We want to make sure that we create a sense of belonging for young people in this country, not an environment where they believe they will never be able to succeed because other people continue to tell them so despite the evidence. I will find out about the request she has made to the commissioners, and I am sure that they will respond in due course.
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
This is gaslighting on a national scale.
“The New Age of Empire”, page 95, tells us exactly what is happening. On page 103, “This is Why I Resist”, by Dr Shola, explains about racial gatekeepers, which Musa Okwonga from Byline Times talks about. My question to the Minister is this. The Government briefed a clear message well in advance of this report landing. Why did they do that?
Kemi Badenoch
I think it is disgusting that a Member of this House will stand up and accuse people of being racial gatekeepers. This is the same nonsense we have heard time and time again—calling people Uncle Toms, calling them house negroes and house slaves, and calling them racial gatekeepers. The fact that the hon. Lady is able to stand here and use that phrase without any shame whatsoever just shows how far the Labour party has fallen.
Kemi Badenoch
I will answer the question, but we in this House have a responsibility to speak about this issue with nuance and responsibility, and the way the hon. Lady has carried out the debate is disgraceful. In fact, she is one of the many people who continue to stoke division in this country, and I am very sad to hear her remarks. The fact of the matter is that this report was written by professionals and experts who have a view that is different from hers. If she has a view that is not acknowledged by others, she should engage in a sensible debate, not call them racial gatekeepers.
Dawn Butler
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Minister has a responsibility to Parliament to answer the question. The Minister has given a statement, and she is supposed to answer the question. She has not answered this question.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
That is a continuation of the question, as the hon. Lady knows.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
I want to raise with the Minister concerns about certain organisations prejudging the Sewell report for political ends without fairly assessing the findings. One concerning example was the Runnymede Trust, which organised a campaign against the report over a week before it was published and broadcast a live-streamed event with Patrick Vernon, chair of Labour’s racial equality advisory group, where they argued that the report’s authors were equivalent to holocaust deniers who had been asked to develop a strategy on antisemitism. Does the Minister agree that not only does that kind of bad faith political action undermine the Runnymede Trust’s charitable objective of improved race relations, but that the shameful treatment of the report’s commissioners might actually discourage ethnic minorities from contributing to public life and public debate? I also thank her for her statement.
Kemi Badenoch
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. What he has described is part of the climate of intimidation surrounding the report’s authors, which I condemned in my statement and which has just been demonstrated by the hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler).
I read in today’s paper that the Runnymede Trust is now the subject of a complaint to the Charity Commission. One complaint refers to the behaviour of the trust’s CEO and staff towards ethnic minorities who have a different approach to racial equality. Some of that behaviour includes calling a black Conservative a “house negro” and horrific views on mixed-race relationships expressed by one staff member, comparing white people having relationships with black people to slave masters sleeping with their slaves. I do not believe that these actions are appropriate for a charity committed to racial equality.
This is a good time to remind the House that the current chair of the Runnymede Trust applied to be the Labour candidate for Poplar and Limehouse in 2019, but failed to make the shortlist. I would be keen to know whether the shadow Minister condemns those sorts of remarks, or believes that they are acceptable so long as they are targeted at people she disagrees with.[Official Report, 22 April 2021, Vol. 692, c. 5MC.]
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Ethnic minority communities have suffered disproportionate numbers of deaths from covid-19. The Sewell report fails to recognise that structural racism underlies many socioeconomic inequalities. There is an interconnectivity between different forms of disadvantage and discrimination but, at the heart of it, is structural racism. It is important for the Government to recognise that. Will the Government commit to working with organisations such as Operation Black Vote to implement a covid-19 race equality strategy that looks in particular at health inequalities and makes sure that the lived experience of people from ethnic minority backgrounds is listened to?
Kemi Badenoch
The hon. Lady will know that I have been reporting to this House quarterly on the very work that she describes—the effect that covid-19 has had on ethnic minority people and other vulnerable groups. We have explained the reasons for the causes of those disparities. The Public Health England report had a qualitative review, which talked about people’s experiences of racism in the system.
What we have to do now, however, is to ensure that we protect people. Our strategy at the moment is around vaccines. We have been doing everything we can to increase vaccine uptake, including significant amounts of work—which I reported to the House in February—on increasing vaccine uptake among ethnic minority groups where a large percentage of vaccine hesitancy remains, again much of it caused by misrepresentation and misinformation. I hope that the hon. Lady and members of her party will work with us in government on tackling misinformation and disinformation and will encourage those vulnerable groups to get vaccinated.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
The BBC has now said that, in terms of race and culture, you are what you eat. That clearly has a narrowing implication for playwrights and authors who increasingly feel that they may write only about their personal racial and ethnic experience. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a rather chilling thing in terms of the values that are now being put out?
Kemi Badenoch
My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. I believe in freedom of expression. It is important that authors, playwrights and other artists feel free to write about and represent a broad range of people, regardless of their race or ethnicity. That is what we would see in a truly diverse society with a shared culture, rather than a “stay in your lane” approach that assumes our society consists of mutually antagonistic identity groups.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
The commission’s report used the phrase “Caribbean experience” as a euphemism for the slave trade. In Scotland, if the SNP is re-elected, it will fund the development of an online programme in Scotland and the UK on colonial history throughout the world. It will be able to be used in schools as an educational tool. Does the Minister agree that countries still have to face their colonial history for what it was and to have a mature discussion about its consequences and impacts?
Kemi Badenoch
I agree that we need to have a mature discussion, but I should let the hon. Gentleman know that the commission and its chair have been misrepresented on the comments about slavery. They have stated that any suggestion that they downplayed the history of slavery is “absurd” and deeply “offensive”:
“The report merely says that, in the face of the inhumanity of slavery, African people preserved their humanity and culture.”
The hon. Gentleman might be interested in the commission recommendation on new curriculum resources better to teach this complex history of the people of Britain.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
I wish to report to the House and to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that 20 Members of the House, including my hon. Friends the Members for Ipswich (Tom Hunt), for Bassetlaw (Brendan Clarke-Smith) and for Broxtowe (Darren Henry), have written to the Charity Commission complaining about the Runnymede Trust’s treatment of the commissioners and its response to the report, which, frankly, reflects the outrage of those who have had their long-standing bourgeois liberal prejudices challenged. It is important that the Minister give me an assurance today that she will make representations across Government to stop the worthless work—often publicly funded—of organisations that are promulgating weird, woke ideas and that, in doing so, are seeding doubt and fear and, more than that, disharmony and disunity.
Kemi Badenoch
My right hon. Friend is right. It is important that we in Government do not inadvertently promote people who are pushing divisive narratives, and I will look into his request and see what we can do across the House and across Government.
It is interesting that my right hon. Friend, too, raises the Runnymede Trust. He might not be aware of this, but the Equality and Human Rights Commission has written an open letter to the Runnymede Trust. In its letter of 12 April, its chair states that the Runnymede Trust made “unsubstantiated allegations” about the EHRC, questioned its “impartiality and impact” and impugned its credibility. The letter also said that the Runnymede Trust showed “an apparent misunderstanding” about the EHRC’s
“mandate as set out in statute”.
I was really shocked to read the commissioners’ letter and to learn that the Runnymede Trust had even asked—or certainly implied—that the EHRC should be defunded, which is surely the opposite of what a charity focused on improving race relations should want, and the complete opposite of its objectives, which goes to the point that my right hon. Friend made.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
In the light of the job statistics released this morning indicating that young people and London have been particularly hard hit over the past 12 months, the issue of ethnic minority employment and pay prospects is pressing for many of my constituents. The report paints a largely positive story of an overall convergence between minorities and the white majority when it comes to employment and pay, yet the official data makes it perfectly clear that the situation has not markedly improved when viewed over decades. For example, the unemployment rate for black people has consistently been more than double the rate for white people over the past 20 years. How, then, does the Minister believe that the report’s claims in this area can be squared with what the available evidence clearly illustrates, which is that structural racial inequalities remain a stubborn feature of our labour market?
Kemi Badenoch
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and for engaging with some of the contents of the report rather than in divisive rhetoric. The answer to part of the question is that many of those statistics do not control for age. In this country, black people are much younger than the rest of the population, and that often ends up skewing some of the statistics. The report paints a picture of a continuing improvement and convergence, but the employment section is the bit that highlights the most significant problems, and there is quite a lot to do on that front. I encourage the hon. Gentleman to look at some of the recommendations and to let us know whether he agrees or disagrees. Before Government respond, I would encourage Members to put forward their suggestions, based on the evidence that the commission has produced, for what we should be doing.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC) [V]
Diolch yn fawr iawn, Mr Dirprwy Lefarydd. While of course the commissioners must be respected, their report should undergo scrutiny. They say they did not find conclusive evidence of institutional racism in the areas examined. Dr Robert Jones of Cardiff University provides Wales-specific evidence that 36 black people in every 1,000 experience stop and search, compared with five white people; that 91 black people for every 10,000 are in prison, compared with 14 white people; and that prison sentences for black people stand at an average of 30 months, rising to 35 months for mixed people, compared with an average of 20 months for white people. To what other institutional factors does the Minister ascribe the greatest part of those disparities? Will she work with the next Welsh Government to implement Plaid Cymru’s manifesto commitment of a race equality action plan to address this issue?
Kemi Badenoch
I thank the right hon. Lady for her question. I think I should again clarify what the commission says on the existence of racism. It states:
“Overt and outright racism persists in the UK. Examples of it loom larger in our minds because we witness it not just as graffiti on our walls or abuse hurled across our streets,”
but even in private settings.
On the over-representation of minority groups in stop-and-search, the commission looks at the causes and at where stop and search happens. It happens in London, which is where the vast majority of ethnic minorities live, compared with the rest of the country. That does have an impact on the data. The commission also puts forward recommendations on things we can do to build trust in the police to reduce the number of stop-and-searches that are required. I have forgotten the second point that the right hon. Lady raised, but I think it was in a similar vein.
Discrimination is not explained by disparities alone. Sometimes it is the case; sometimes it is not. Where it is the case, the commission has identified that; where it is not, it has put forward other potential explanations.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con) [V]
One of the refreshing things about the report is the careful balance between acknowledging the challenges that are still very real and the progress that is happening. Here in Leicestershire, that progress is very visible on wages and employment. Does my hon. Friend agree that if we are to make further progress it is essential to acknowledge the progress that has been made and to understand the causes—how, why and where this is happening—so that we can go further and make more progress?
Kemi Badenoch
Yes, that is absolutely right: I do agree. We need to focus on what works and why, as well as what does not and why, so that we can target our resources where they will be most effective. The report looks at why certain groups that are very similar end up with completely different outcomes, which is why institutional racism cannot be the defining reason. When black African and black Caribbean groups, and Indians and Pakistanis, have diverging outcomes, it is clear that something else is going on. I hope that my hon. Friend will work with Government to try to find out what measures we can put in place to address these disparities.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab) [V]
The report talks about creating agency so that individuals can take greater control of decisions that impact their lives. In response, will the Minister recommend that English for speakers of other languages funding, which has been cut by more than 50% since the Conservatives came to power in 2010, be reinstated?
Kemi Badenoch
If the hon. Lady has a comprehensive proposal about that, she can write to me and we will consider it in the light of the Government response.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con) [V]
I served on the Youth Justice Board with the chairman of the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities, Dr Tony Sewell. My experience was that he always acted with integrity and that he had the courage to challenge the conventional wisdom when he found evidence to suggest an alternative perspective. Does my hon. Friend share my abhorrence at how he and his fellow commissioners have been vilified, abused and threatened? Does she share my concern that such a response risks putting off other people from carrying out important work that can help to improve our society for all communities?
Kemi Badenoch
I completely agree with my hon. Friend and I thank him very much for telling us about his personal experience working with Dr Tony Sewell. I believe that Keith Fraser, one of the other commissioners, is also a member of the Youth Justice Board. One reason why I believe there has been much push-back against the report is that it has not come from the usual suspects. We did not go to the race relations industry to ask people to tell us the same things they have been telling us for a long time; we went to people who work in the field such as doctors, teachers, policemen, scientists, economists and journalists—including, I might add, a former chair of the Runnymede Trust—to find out what we can do to improve disparities in this country.[Official Report, 22 April 2021, Vol. 692, c. 5MC.] We went to the people who actually had the experience in doing things rather than just talking, and I am very proud of the commission and the work it has done.
Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con) [V]
Covid-19 has highlighted the importance of family units and their critical role in our communities up and down the UK. That is why I welcome, in particular, recommendation 19, which outlines seminal plans to understand and take action to address the underlying issues facing families across all backgrounds. Will my hon. Friend put those words into actions and ensure that our local authorities support the most vulnerable families who are experiencing disadvantage and discrimination?
Kemi Badenoch
My hon. Friend is right that local authorities have a very important role to play in this space. I am very pleased that he has actually read the recommendation and not just the reports about the report. Local authorities have played an important part in mitigating the disproportionate impact of covid on some ethnic minorities via the community champion scheme, for which we announced funding last autumn. With regard to his other comments, the Government response is not yet prepared; it will be coming in due course in the summer. We will consider the recommendation that he has made in the light of the full report.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab) [V]
In her responses, the Minister repeatedly conflates disagreement with this report with misrepresentation or not having read the report, so let us draw a line under that—we have read it, but we know that institutional racism is still felt across every area of the UK and that there is no new story to tell about slavery and colonialism. She may disagree, but does she at least recognise and understand why people—more specifically the people this report is about—overwhelmingly see this report as steeped in denial and why it is viewed as a complete insult to those who have been the victims of institutional racism, such as black women, who are four times more likely to die in pregnancy and childbirth? Does she recognise that denial is a core mechanism of institutional racism? Can she explain how she plans to push ahead with this report when it is so widely rejected by those it impacts?
Kemi Badenoch
If the hon. Lady reads beyond The Guardian and perhaps statements in the Morning Star, she will realise that the report has been welcomed by many, many organisations, not just the Equality and Human Rights Commission, but even the Royal College of Physicians and many more. I am not here to reel out a list of who supports the Government. It is interesting that she says that I confuse disagreement with divisiveness, because it was her colleague the hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) who just stood up there and called people “racial gatekeepers”. I wonder whether the hon. Lady agrees with that comment, which is unbelievably divisive rhetoric. What I would say to her is that she does not speak for all ethnic minorities. Ethnic minorities are not uniquely left wing, and to claim that a report about black and brown people can only talk about issues from her perspective completely ignores the fact that there are many of us, of various skin colours—she can see my face and she knows I am a black woman, just like her—who disagree. We disagree. She raises the point about maternal health, and I would like to take the opportunity to make this point: in a debate on 11 March, she said that
“one in four black women dies in childbirth”.—[Official Report, 11 March 2021; Vol. 690, c. 1089.]
That statistic, which thankfully she has now corrected, is completely wrong. The actual figure is not 25% of black women, but 0.34%. It is a very confusing statistic because we often represent the numbers in terms of numbers per 800,000.[Official Report, 27 April 2021, Vol. 693, c. 2MC.] What I have been doing is working on maternal health. I have spoken to the chief midwifery officer and to Dame Donna Kinnair, the head of the Royal College of Nursing; we in government have had conversations and they all accept that because the numbers are so small, it will often be very hard to target effectively, but that does not mean we will not try. We do have a maternal health strategy, which I know the hon. Lady has seen, and I wish that for once she would acknowledge the work that the Government have done, rather than repeating false statistics and pretending that nothing is happening, when that is far from the truth.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con) [V]
I thank my hon. Friend for her statement. The commission’s report rightly sets how geography, family make-up and socioeconomics contribute to inequality, but the report is also clear that that does not mean that racism does not exist in our country today. Echoing the McGregor review, the reports shows, for example, racism that people experience when applying for a job. Will the Government include specific policies to tackle racism at work in the response that my hon. Friend talked about in her opening statement, as well as tackling the more general economic inequality, which can affect everyone in society?
Kemi Badenoch
I thank my right hon. Friend for that question. Everyone has a part to play. I cannot outline the Government response now; we are still working on it, as I announced in my statement. However, the report makes recommendations not just for Government, but for the public sector, the private sector, businesses and individuals. There will be plenty that we can do to address those issues, and we will see what the Government have to say on them in their response in the summer.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab) [V]
The commission’s chair says that it found no evidence in Britain of institutional racism, which it defines as
“racist or discriminatory processes, policies, attitudes or behaviours in a single institution.”
How does the Minister for Equalities square that with the policy of holiday park operator Pontins to ban Gypsies and Travellers from its premises? Is not deliberate discrimination on the grounds of race, whether by arms of the state or private corporations, institutional racism in plain sight?
Kemi Badenoch
The commission looked at specific areas; it did not examine Pontins. It did not say that there is no institutional racism in Britain; as I said in my statement, it said that about the areas it looked at. I do not believe that the holiday sector was one of the areas it examined. For what it is worth, no business should discriminate against people on the basis of their ethnicity or background. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and I share that view. I do not know the full details of the Pontins situation, but that is exactly the kind of thing that we want to address in Government, so that we can make sure that communities get fair treatment. What is good about the commission’s report is that, unlike many reports that look at race and racism, is actually looks at the Gypsy, Romany and Traveller community, especially in respect of education—many people ignore them because they are classified as white, which I do not think is the right way to go. That is one reason why it is important to disaggregate BAME and talk about specific groups.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con) [V]
May I thank my hon. Friend the Minister personally for reaching out after the threat that my fiancé and I received last week?
Since the report was published, many Carshalton and Wallington residents have asked to see the Government’s response and what action is now going to be taken. Will my hon. Friend confirm that once a response has been issued and work has begun on implementing recommendations, the GEO will begin to establish mechanisms to measure the success of measures and provide regular updates to the House?
Kemi Badenoch
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. This is very much part of the ethos of the equality hub: there is no point in enacting policy and then not checking to see whether it is successful. In fact, too many resources have probably been spent on creating activities but not necessarily checking whether they are generating the benefits that we expect. I thank my hon. Friend for that question and assure him that that is the way we intend to approach these issues.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
I put on record my thanks for the work of the Runnymede Trust and declare an interest as a former member of staff there, working as its public affairs manager. The Runnymede Trust is a leading race equality think-tank and has, through some of its quality work and research, helped to identify issues in respect of addressing race equality in this country.
I wish to focus on the commission and the issues around education. The commission focuses a lot on the educational experience of young black and minority ethnic students, but I hope the Minister will agree with me on this. A few years ago a Runnymede Trust article highlighted the fact that when a number of black and minority ethnic students who do well at GCSE and A-level go to university, their degree classifications are much lower, which has a big impact on them securing work when they leave university. Will the Minister agree to look at this issue and not just accept the commission’s report in terms of saying that for all black and minority ethnic students educational attainment is going in the right direction?
Kemi Badenoch
I am pleased that the hon. Lady has actually read the report. As I said, I am happy to debate and disagree, but not to be misrepresented.
The hon. Lady raises an interesting point about what is happening in education. I should clarify that the good news that the report highlights is around GCSEs; it probably agrees with her about what is going on in higher education. The report talks about black students being more likely to take poorer quality courses at less prestigious universities, and there is a big disparity in the fact that black students are the least likely to go to a high tariff provider and are 1.7 times more likely than their white peers to attend what the report describes as “low tariff institutions”. Part of the difference is due to the high progression rate into higher education for black students, but the report also talks about the sort of advice that they are given. It is very much an issue that we should explore further and I will encourage colleagues from the Department for Education to look into it. If the hon. Lady wants to write to them directly, I encourage her to do that.
I thank the hon. Lady for her question and note her comments about the former Runnymede Trust. We on the Conservative Benches have worked well with people such as Trevor Phillips, and one of the commissioners, Samir Shah, is also a former chair of the Runnymede Trust, but I cannot accept the behaviour of the current chair and some staff members.[Official Report, 22 April 2021, Vol. 692, c. 6MC.]
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con) [V]
The Sewell report recognises that issues of mistrust and unfairness, whether they are real or perceived, really matter, especially in policing. Will my hon. Friend engage with her Home Office colleagues to develop proposals to build on the good work that has been done to make local police forces more representative of the communities that they serve and introduce more community oversight of local policing?
Kemi Badenoch
Yes, that is one of the recommendations in the report and it is clear from what it says that trust and fairness are key issues for ethnic minority communities, particularly when it comes to policing, as my hon. Friend has just highlighted. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Crime and Policing is already engaging with the commission to discuss its recommendations in that regard and I welcome his early initiative in doing so.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) [V]
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. [Inaudible.]
Janet Daby
…to address structural inequalities of race and ethnicity in the social security system.
Kemi Badenoch
I am afraid that I did not hear most of the question. If the hon. Lady writes to me, I shall send her a comprehensive response in a letter.
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con) [V]
Does my hon. Friend agree that, because the children’s commissioner for England and the Royal College of Physicians have welcomed recommendations in their respective fields, it is clear that the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities was motivated by outcomes rather than outrage?
Kemi Badenoch
Absolutely. I welcome the support shown by those leading experts in their respective fields and I thank them for their positive engagement with the report’s findings and recommendations that pertain to them. The Sewell commission, as I understand it, adopted an approach that was driven by a need for better outcomes, not better process, which is testament to its strong desire to effect change for all, not for a selected few. I am very happy to accept that there will probably never be a race report in this country that everyone will get behind. We have very different views on it, but what we do need is to hear from those people who have different views from what we constantly hear reported.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab) [V]
Minister, is it common sense to want to ignore the difficult part of our history and withdraw funding from charitable organisations, including the National Trust and the Runnymede Trust, which highlight the consequences of institutional racism, as members of the so-called Common Sense Group is proposing? Is that not divisive rhetoric that stokes culture wars?
Kemi Badenoch
It is interesting that the hon. Lady raises that point. The Runnymede Trust has said, according to a letter from the chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, that the EHRC should not have funding. It implied that the EHRC should be defunded, so if she wants to talk about people who want to defund charities and organisations working on racial equality, she should ask the chair of the Runnymede Trust why she made that statement.[Official Report, 22 April 2021, Vol. 692, c. 6MC.]
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con) [V]
May I begin by commending the Minister for her appearance at the Dispatch Box today, which has been rightly and appropriately robust at times? I very much welcome this report as it is one of the first reports on race that acknowledges the disadvantage experienced by many white working class boys in our country and also acknowledges the geographical disparities that exist. Will she ensure that the recommendations in the Sewell report are brought forward as part of the Government’s levelling-up agenda?
Kemi Badenoch
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the importance of this report and the opportunity it provides for the Government to make Britain a fairer society for all. This report is the first attempt to grip the complex reality of ethnic advantage and disadvantage. Unlike many other reports on race and ethnicity, it is also the first to include some of the profound disparities experienced by the race and ethnic majority in this country. Educational outcomes for children in this group are a critical part of the commission’s deliberations and its approach to the 24 recommendations is one that stands to benefit all, regardless of their race, ethnicity or socio-economic background. We want a country that is fair for everyone. The Government are now actively considering this report and the recommendations that it makes and look forward to publishing their full response in due course.
Mr Deputy Speaker
I thank the Minister for her statement and for responding to 28 questions.
Point of Order
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. During the statement, the Minister for Equalities, the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Kemi Badenoch), made multiple accusations that I made false statements in my remarks. I want to set the record straight. Nothing in my remarks was false or inaccurate. I seek your guidance on how I can get the record corrected.
I hope that you will indulge me, Mr Deputy Speaker, if I very briefly make a further point. I think it is only right that I do so. When my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) made the error that the Minister mentioned, she was giving a speech sharing her personal experience of baby loss. The Minister knows that. That is why my hon. Friend made the error, and she quickly corrected the record. It was unfair of the Minister to use that in her response to my hon. Friend.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
The hon. Lady has put that on the record in making her point of order, but I am sure that there will be many more opportunities for this issue to be further discussed.
We will move straight to the ten-minute rule Bill without any pause, but during that time, may we please have the Dispatch Boxes cleaned, if that is at all possible? I know that the Minister who will take the place of the Equalities Minister will not touch the Dispatch Box; he has given me an assurance.
Planning (Local Authority Housing Developments)
Tuesday 20th April 2021
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Planning (Local Authority Housing Developments) Bill 2019-21 View all Planning (Local Authority Housing Developments) Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish independent local planning processes to determine housing development planning applications submitted by local authorities; and for connected purposes.
This Bill is designed to improve scrutiny and transparency in the planning process, particularly in the light of the growing appetite of local authorities to build more homes for private sale themselves and to act more like private developers than local authorities.
Hon. Members will know that at present, the foundation of our planning system rests with an impartial assessment of a planning application being carried out by the local planning authority. That assessment takes into account the council’s own planning policies and the views of a wide range of consultees. In conjunction with bodies such as the Environment Agency, Natural England and the relevant transport authority, a local planning officer will then either determine the application under delegated powers or provide an officer recommendation and allow councillors on the relevant planning committee to make the final decision, with regard to key planning issues at hand.
The fundamental point in the current process is that both the assessment and the determination of a planning application are independent. In the majority of cases, the current system works well, and local planning authorities can deal with the full spectrum of applications they receive from individuals, small and medium-sized enterprises, large private developers, housing associations and other parts of the public sector. Yet in a system that works well, there are examples where local authorities can effectively mark their own homework.
Many local authorities bring forward applications for new council housing or, in the case of unitary authorities, new schools, meaning that the council is, in effect, both the developer and the applicant. Generally speaking, those applications relate to core council and public services, so perhaps these relatively infrequent conflicts of interest could be overlooked. However, as I alluded to, many local authorities are beginning to move away from the provision of just council housing and core public services, and to focus instead on building more houses for private sale. In effect, councils are starting to act more like private developers.
Nowhere is this more evident than in my constituency of Eastleigh. As I have raised in the House previously, the Liberal Democrat council in my area is taking forward a large-scale application for 2,500 houses in the village of Horton Heath, all built on green fields, to the considerable dismay of local residents. The council has borrowed large sums to fund the development. It has bought land from a private developer and expanded the original planning permission for the site from 900 homes to 2,500.
We already know that the profits from that development, which is overwhelmingly for private sale, are built into the council’s future budget. I hasten to add that the borough council currently has a debt of £540 million, or £4,000 for every man, woman and child who lives in my constituency. I would argue that that is not a good business model, but that questionable business model has contributed to Eastleigh’s having built 49% more housing than required by Government targets in the last three years, and it is continuing to inspire the council to build 4,311 houses in the next five years, nearly 20% more than targets ask for.
Naturally, this has left many of my constituents feeling angry and let down by the planning system. These plans appear to go through the council’s own planning system with ease, given that this level of overdevelopment is the policy of the Liberal Democrat administration. Many residents are rightly asking how this can be right when there is such an obvious conflict of interest.
We must ask ourselves: where is the independent scrutiny that we apply to other planning applications? Is there any realistic proposition that this application would be refused when the council is so heavily invested in a project, both financially and politically? To a lesser degree, would the council treat itself in the same way as a private developer when it comes to issues such as transport, flood mitigation, density or the provision of affordable housing? I say to the Minister that my experience is that it would not. It should also be acknowledged that even if the current system does not generate any difference in the treatment of applicants, the perception of applicants being treated differently is just as damaging to the whole system.
To be clear, I am not saying that local authorities should not be able to build and develop housing themselves. I entirely agree that they should. However, I am concerned about the lack of transparency and the absence of the usual checks and balances afforded to other developers. It stands to reason that if a local authority wants to act as a developer, it should be treated as such and should not take advantage of the fact that it is the local planning authority. That is why I believe that this Bill is absolutely vital to protect the integrity and probity of our current planning system. In simple terms, the Bill would reform the process by which planning applications made by a local authority in its own area would be determined. The process would ensure that any application made had been scrutinised and determined properly.
Before outlining how the reforms would operate, I will first set out the process for triggering the new independent process. The mechanism for determining applications could be triggered in one of two ways. The first way would be if a local authority brought forward any development of 300 units or more in its administrative boundary. That would automatically trigger the independent process.
To supplement this and to provide a mechanism for the public to trigger the process, the second way would require a level of public engagement subject to a threshold. When a local authority submitted a planning application to itself, there would be a grace period of 30 days before a planning application was processed. Local authorities would be obliged to set up an online portal that allowed people to register their request for the independent process to be triggered. If 10% of the electors of a council ward affected by the development signed the petition, the independent process would also be triggered. This would not only provide a safeguard for multiple applications just below 300 units, but allow members of the public to direct controversial applications to the independent process if a suitable number of electors was reached. This would then lead to the reforms to the actual process.
Once the independent process is triggered, the first step in it is for the planning application to be assigned to a statistical neighbour planning authority. The neighbouring planning authority would allocate a planning officer to act as the case officer, and the case officer would determine the application in line with host local authority’s planning policy and usual consultees. A fee would be paid to the neighbouring planning authority by the host planning authority to cover the costs in officer time. The decision would then be referred to councillors at the host planning authority for determination. The public could be assured, however, that the officer recommendation was based on an independent assessment of the planning merits.
The second part of the independent process would automatically refer any decision made by councillors from the host authority to the independent Planning Inspectorate. In order for the planning application to be approved, it would be necessary for a planning inspector to ratify the decision made by councillors. If the planning inspector disagreed, the application would then be referred to the Secretary of State for a final decision.
I believe that this small but significant reform to our planning system would bring much-needed transparency back to the current system. It would ensure that local authorities submitting their own planning applications were subject to proper scrutiny and would provide reassurance for members of the public and constituencies across the United Kingdom. It would end the conflict of interest that exists in the current system and ensure that local authorities were not granting planning permission to themselves.
The planning system—I say this as a former planning committee chairman—can be a game-changer for house building across the UK. However, many people still see it as opaque and favourable to big developers. This is a small step to correct that view and give our residents the reassurance that they need. I commend the Bill to the House.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I have been given no indication that anybody intends to oppose this motion, and I see no one rising, so I intend to put the Question.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Paul Holmes, Chris Clarkson, Sara Britcliffe, Robbie Moore, Ben Everitt, Scott Benton, Andrew Griffith and Stephen Hammond present the Bill.
Paul Holmes accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed (Bill 286).
Finance (No. 2) Bill
Tuesday 20th April 2021
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Finance Act 2021 View all Finance Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 20 April 2021 - large print - (20 Apr 2021)
16:19 - The House divided: - Ayes: 261 / Noes: 366 - Question accordingly negatived.
17:13 - The House divided: - Ayes: 214 / Noes: 364 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)
I should explain that, in these exceptional circumstances, although the Chair of the Committee would normally sit in the Clerk’s chair during Committee stage, in order to comply with social distancing requirements, I will remain in the Speaker’s Chair, and I will be carrying out the role not of Deputy Speaker but of Chairman of the Committee. We should be addressed as Chairs of the Committee, rather than as Deputy Speakers.
Clause 30
Construction industry scheme
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Second Deputy Chairman
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 70, in schedule 6, page 121, line 1, leave out “ceases to be” and insert “is not”.
This amendment would allow that a de minimis amount of minor works can be disregarded.
Amendment 71, page 121, line 2, after “time” insert
“, but the body or person expects it to be met at any time,”.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 70.
Amendment 72, page 121, line 3, leave out “continuing to be” and insert “being”.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 70.
Amendment 84, page 121, line 4, leave out “any further”.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 70.
Amendment 85, page 121, line 5, at end insert “exceeding £3,000,000”.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 70.
Amendment 73, page 121, line 8, leave out paragraph 3.
This amendment would remove the provision making businesses who fall within the current definition, but who would not fall under the new definition of “deemed contractor”, to be drawn into the new regime for CIS from 6 April 2021.
Amendment 74, page 121, line 20, leave out paragraph 4.
This amendment would remove the provision requiring that, when a contractor is deducting the relevant percentage from a contract payment made to a sub-contractor, they should first deduct only the cost of material purchased by the sub-contractor from the figure to which the relevant percentage deduction is applied.
Amendment 75, page 123, line 17, leave out “2021-22” and insert “2022-23”.
This amendment would delay commencement until April 2022.
Amendment 76, page 123, line 20, leave out “2021” and insert “2022”.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 75.
That schedule 6 be the Sixth schedule to the Bill.
Clause 36 stand part.
Government amendments 17 to 42.
That schedule 7 be the Seventh schedule to the Bill.
Clause 41 stand part.
Clause 115 stand part.
That schedule 27 be the Twenty-seventh schedule to the Bill.
Clauses 117 to 121 stand part.
Amendment 77, in schedule 29, page 319, line 23, at end insert—
“32 After section 280 of Finance Act 2014 insert—
‘280A Treatment of promoters of abusive tax avoidance schemes
(1) In any proceedings for the offence of cheating the public revenue, where—
(a) the person charged acted as a promoter in relation to relevant arrangements within the meaning of section 235, or the person charged gave in the course of business affirmative advice on the viability of relevant arrangements within the meaning of section 234, and
(b) the relevant arrangements were abusive tax arrangements within the meaning of sub-paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 16 of Finance (No. 2) Act 2017,
subsection (2) shall apply, subject to subsection (3).
(2) If, at any time that the person charged acted so as to fall within subsection (1)(a), that person was aware of the course of action or intended course of action having the consequence that the relevant arrangements were abusive tax arrangements within the meaning of sub-paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 16 of Finance (No. 2) Act 2017, the actions of that person in respect of the relevant arrangements shall be deemed to have been dishonest.
(3) Subsection (2) shall not apply if the person charged proves that they held in good faith the belief that the course of action or intended course of action was reasonable in the circumstances.’”
This amendment would cause promoters of tax avoidance schemes which are abusive (defined in existing legislation to mean schemes where it is not reasonable to regard the scheme as a reasonable course of action) to be treated as acting dishonestly for the purposes of criminal prosecution of tax offences, without dishonesty having to be separately proved by the prosecution.
That schedules 29 to 32 be the Twenty-ninth to Thirty-second schedules to the Bill.
New clause 14—Review of changes to construction industry scheme—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the impact on investment in parts of the United Kingdom and regions of England of the changes made to the construction industry scheme by section 30 and schedule 6 of this Act and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.
(2) A review under this section must consider the effects of the provisions on—
(a) business investment,
(b) employment,
(c) productivity,
(d) GDP growth, and
(e) poverty.
(3) In this section—
‘parts of the United Kingdom’ means—
(a) England,
(b) Scotland,
(c) Wales, and
(d) Northern Ireland;
and ‘regions of England’ has the same meaning as that used by the Office for National Statistics.”
This new clause would require a report on the construction industry scheme provisions on various economic indicators.
New clause 15—Review of effect on tax revenues—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the effects on tax revenues of section 115 and schedule 27, and sections 117 to 121 and schedules 29 to 32 of this Act, and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.
(2) A review under this section must consider—
(a) the expected change in corporation and income tax paid attributable to the provisions; and
(b) an estimate of any change, attributable to the provisions, in the difference between the amount of tax required to be paid to the Commissioners and the amount paid.
(3) The reference to tax required to be paid in subsection 2(b) includes taxes payable by the owners and employees of Scottish limited partnerships.”
This new clause would require a report on the impact of certain provisions of the Bill on narrowing the tax gap by comparing: (a) the expected change in corporation and income tax paid attributable to the provisions and (b) an estimate of any change, attributable to the provisions, in the difference between the amount of tax required to be paid to the Commissioners and the amount paid. In particular, this includes taxes payable by the owners and employees of Scottish limited partnerships.
New clause 29—Review of tax avoidance measures—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the impact of sections 117 to 121 and Schedules 29 to 32 of this Act and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act, and then annually for five further years.
(2) A review under this section must estimate the expected impact of sections 117 to 121 and Schedules 29 to 32 on—
(a) levels of tax avoidance,
(b) levels of tax evasion, and
(c) reducing the tax gap in each tax year from 2021-22 to 2025-26.”
This new clause would require the Government to review the impact of the provisions relating to tax avoidance and publish regular reports setting out their findings.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)
The Government remain committed to tackling tax avoidance, evasion and other forms of non-compliance. Since 2010, we have introduced over 150 new measures and invested over £2 billion in additional funding to ensure that the right tax is paid at the right time. These efforts have helped to secure and protect over £250 billion for the UK’s public services that would otherwise have gone unpaid, and they have helped to bring down the tax gap to 4.7% in 2018-19—its lowest recorded rate.
But there is still work to do. Clauses in this Bill build on our previous reforms in order to clamp down on deliberate non-compliance and make sure that everyone pays their fair share. They include measures to tighten the anti-avoidance rules aimed at those who promote and enable tax avoidance schemes. They also close a loophole in the existing anti-avoidance rule aimed at preventing non-UK resident individuals from claiming relief when they gift business assets to a company controlled overseas.
The clauses support HMRC’s strategy on promoting good tax compliance. As an example of that approach, the Government are amending the follower notices regime, which penalises taxpayers who have used avoidance schemes that have been shown to be ineffective, in order to make it fairer for those who comply, while ensuring that the regime remains just as effective at combating avoidance. The Bill also seeks to bring parts of the hidden economy out of the shadows by making some licence approvals conditional on tax registration and compliance. The clauses in the Bill are necessarily technical, which is in part down to the complex rules that are currently in place. Given the number of issues that we are covering and the number of speakers in the debate, I will keep my remarks fairly brief.
Clause 30 and schedule 6 introduce changes to tackle abuse of the construction industry scheme. The construction industry scheme is a revenue protection scheme designed to tackle evasion in the construction sector. The scheme protects approximately £7.1 billion in tax every year by requiring contractors to make deductions from the payments they make to subcontractors that they engage. Those payments count as advance payments towards those subcontractors’ tax and national insurance. The changes made by clause 30 will allow HMRC to correct employers’ CIS deductions when they are false or incorrect. Clause 30 will clarify the rules on deductions for the cost of materials and change the rules for determining which businesses will need to operate the CIS. It will also expand the scope of the current penalty for providing false information to HMRC.
Scottish National party amendment 74 would remove paragraph 4 of schedule 6 to the Bill, which would have the effect of removing the proposed changes to rules for deductions for materials. However, there is a clear case in public policy for these changes. Some contractors and subcontractors are interpreting the rules incorrectly at present in a way that undermines the purpose of allowing materials deductions within the scheme, which allows some contractors and subcontractors an advantage over others. The proposed rule changes will ensure a clear and consistent approach, providing a level playing field for those involved. I therefore urge the House to reject amendment 74.
Amendment 73 proposes to remove paragraph 3 of schedule 6, which relates to the transitional arrangements between the old and new rules for qualifying as a deemed contractor. This would mean that many businesses would have to change their business arrangements overnight and go through the process of re-registering for the construction industry scheme under the new rules. As this could be more disruptive and confusing than the proposed transitional arrangements, I urge the House to reject the amendment.
Amendments 75 and 76 would delay the commencement of this measure to April 2022 rather than April 2021. Such a delay would not be appropriate, as industry has already been consulted on the changes and any impacts are expected to be limited. Again, I urge the House to reject these amendments.
Clause 36 and schedule 7 amend the corporation tax rules governing so-called hybrid mismatches. These rules are intended to tackle aggressive tax planning by multinational companies that seek to take advantage of differences in how countries view entities and financial instruments. Hybrid mismatches can lead to double deductions for the same expense or deductions for an expense without any corresponding receipt being taxable. The Government have consulted in this area and are amending the rules in several areas so that they remain proportionate and do not lead to economic double taxation. That includes introducing a limited grouping matching rule and a change to the type of income that counteractions under the rules can be set off against.
Government amendments 17 to 42 to clause 36 have been tabled to ensure that the changes provided under that clause work and reflect the underlying policy intent. They address various technical issues that have been raised by external commentators following the publication of the Bill, and mostly change small and technical details.
Clause 41 will close a loophole in the capital gains tax gift holdover relief rules by preventing non-UK residents from being able to claim the relief while transferring a business asset to a company controlled overseas that they personally own. By making this change, the Government are ensuring that the relief is used fairly and only for its intended purpose.
Clause 117 and schedule 29 make changes to the promoters of tax avoidance schemes regime, known as POTAS. The changes allow Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to issue stop notices to prevent the promotion of schemes that it suspects do not work and to obtain information from suspected promoters at an earlier stage of the process than at present. They also prevent promoters from sidestepping the rules by rearranging their corporate structure to carry out activities through different entities. There are a number of other technical amendments to ensure the continued effectiveness of the regime. There are also further measures in the Bill to enhance the operation of the disclosure of tax avoidance schemes—DOTAS—rules.
Clause 119 changes the penalties issued to enablers of tax avoidance schemes that have been defeated in court, at tribunal or otherwise counteracted. The changes will allow HMRC to obtain relevant information from potential enablers at the earliest possible moment so as to be able to consider whether they are liable for an enabler penalty.
Clause 120 and schedule 31 make changes to ensure that the general anti-abuse rule can be used as intended in respect of partnerships that have entered into abusive tax avoidance arrangements.
Finally I turn to clause 121, which from April 2022 makes the renewal of certain licences to trade conditional on licence applicants in England and Wales completing checks with HMRC. The checks will confirm whether applicants are registered for tax, and new licence applicants will be directed to HMRC guidance about their tax obligations.
I turn to the most substantive of the amendments before us today: amendment 77, which relates to the POTAS provisions that I outlined. The amendment seeks to amend schedule 29 so that anyone subject to the promoters of tax avoidance schemes regime, and promoting or enabling abusive tax arrangements, should be deemed to have been acting dishonestly unless they can show that they acted in good faith and believed the arrangements to be reasonable. This would mean, in respect of the criminal offence of cheating the public revenue, that a person would automatically be treated as dishonest where it had been demonstrated that they had promoted abusive tax arrangements as defined in the general anti-abuse rule. As such, there would be no requirement for any prosecution to prove dishonest conduct.
I fully agree that promoters who break the law should face the consequences of their actions. That is why the Government are putting so much emphasis on anti-avoidance measures and measures against promoters of tax avoidance in the Bill and elsewhere. We should be under no illusions about this. It is not honest to market tax schemes or arrangements that are known not to work and that at their heart feature false statements.
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
I will speak to new clause 29, tabled in my name and the names of the Leader of the Opposition and other right hon. and hon. Friends. It is timely to consider what the Government are doing to tackle tax avoidance and tax evasion today, with this month marking five years since the publication of the Panama papers. Those papers revealed the true global scale of tax avoidance and tax evasion and the need for comprehensive and effective action to tackle them. Of course, the clauses we are considering are far more limited in scope.
The Minister set out that clause 30 relates to the abuse of the construction industry scheme rules, clause 36 makes amendments to the corporation tax rules for hybrids and other mismatches and clause 41 amends the anti-avoidance rule when claiming relief for gifts of business assets. More widely, clauses 115 and 117 to 121 relate to other measures, including penalties for the promoters of tax avoidance and giving HMRC new powers to obtain information. We will not oppose those measures today.
However, our concern about the Government’s approach is centred not so much on what those clauses cover but what the Bill, and the Government’s approach more widely, fail to do. Our concern is that, faced with the challenges of tax avoidance and tax evasion, and with the public clearly wanting to see definitive action from the Government, Ministers have presented a Bill of measures that are relatively minor and technical. Indeed, as the House of Commons Library analysis of the Bill concluded, it would seem that the Exchequer impact of these changes will be minimal as they are not included in the Budget report costings.
The truth is that three Conservative Prime Ministers and five Conservative Chancellors have failed to tackle tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance. The Government have repeatedly promised to act, but their proposals in the Bill fall far short of the change we need. That is why our new clause would require the Government to review the impact of provisions in the Bill relating to the levels of tax avoidance and tax evasion and the size of the tax gap, and to publish regular reports setting out their findings. The Government must not be allowed to hide behind warm words on this matter. They need to be transparent about the impact, or lack thereof, that their proposals will have.
We also welcome the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), which seeks to treat promoters of tax avoidance schemes which are abusive as acting dishonestly for the purposes of criminal prosecution of tax offences. This kind of change is crucial if we are to shift towards more criminal prosecutions for the promoters of tax avoidance schemes, and to shift the gear of the Government’s approach.
At the moment, where tax avoidance has occurred, the system lands liabilities on the tax payers, who are usually not tax experts and may have been falsely told that a tax avoidance scheme is lawful. In contrast, the promoters of tax avoidance schemes are allowed far too often to get away with it. We therefore welcome any efforts to strengthen penalties for the promoters of failed tax avoidance schemes. But we have seen nothing from the Government today to raise the stakes and to make greater use of the powers HMRC already has to bring criminal prosecutions against the promoters of fraudulent tax schemes.
We know that HMRC recognises its power to use criminal investigation approaches to tackle the promotion and enabling of tax avoidance schemes, but in a letter the Financial Secretary sent me in January this year, he admitted that, since the formation of HMRC’s fraud investigation service in 2016, only 20 individuals have been convicted for offences relating to arrangements that have been promoted as tax avoidance. An average of around four people a year does not feel like a concerted effort.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a great speech. Does he agree that it seems disproportionate that more people, in an adjusted sense, tackle benefit fraud than tackle big business or dodgy individuals who are taking money from the public purse?
James Murray
I very much agree. My hon. Friend makes an important point about the Government’s priorities, and about the lack of priority they give to going after the promoters of tax avoidance schemes and those who evade paying tax, in comparison to other actions in Government. We are seeking to put pressure on them today to address that imbalance.
HMRC’s criminal investigation policy states:
“Criminal investigation will be reserved for cases where HMRC needs to send a strong deterrent message”.
However, we know that fraud through the promotion of tax avoidance continues at scale, involving at least an estimated £20 billion in 2018-19, so it is hard to imagine why Ministers would not support a stronger deterrent message being sent by the greater use of criminal prosecutions.
Part of the answer may be the understaffing of HMRC. In a response on 11 January this year to a parliamentary question, the Financial Secretary admitted that the number of full-time equivalent employees at HMRC had fallen since 2010 from 67,553 to 58,467. That is a reduction of more than one in seven. The question of capacity in HMRC and the impact that that may have on its ability to tackle tax abuse must not be ignored. The Tax Justice Network refers to the fact that a member of staff in the compliance business stream at HMRC brings in on average over £900,000 a year on a £30,000 salary. It has pointed out that the Chancellor’s additional investment in HMRC staffing is directed towards tackling fraud related to covid spending, while previous funding increases have supported HMRC’s Brexit capacity. Its view is that the Chancellor must invest further in HMRC’s core compliance capacity.
Furthermore, beyond the questions around tackling the promoters of tax avoidance, the Bill is also silent on other important areas that need to be pursued, such as efforts to set up a register of overseas entities. Legislation is needed to establish a register that would show exactly who owns the foreign companies buying up British property. This would serve as a key part of any clampdown on money laundering.
The then Prime Minister, David Cameron, first announced plans for this in 2015, yet more than five years later, the legislation is nowhere to be seen. I bet he has not been in touch with Ministers for action over that. I would welcome the Minister using his speech at the end of this debate as an opportunity to explain whether the promised deadline of introducing legislation to set up a register of overseas entities by 2021 will be missed. If he is silent on this matter, we will take that as a yes.
I would like to use the opportunity of a discussion on tax avoidance to ask the Treasury ministerial team again to confirm whether the Chancellor backs plans for a global minimum corporate tax rate, as proposed by the US President. When I asked the Minister’s colleague, the Exchequer Secretary, to address this point during the Bill’s Second Reading last Tuesday, she did not respond, which I am sure was an oversight. I would therefore welcome the Financial Secretary addressing this question directly in his closing speech, to avoid any misperception that he and his colleagues are deliberately avoiding the question.
Our criticism of the Government in relation to tax avoidance and evasion centres not so much on what the measures in the Bill would achieve but rather on the ways in which the Bill and the Government’s wider approach fall short. The Government lack a tough and comprehensive approach to prosecuting the promoters of tax avoidance, to going after international money launderers and to pursuing those who seek to evade tax. We know that the impact of the measures in the Bill will be relatively minor and technical. The public deserve to have the Government present clearly and transparently what effect the measures in the Bill will have, and our new clause simply requires that their impact on tax avoidance, tax evasion and the size of the tax gap should be reviewed and laid in public before this House.
Throughout the Minister’s statements and comments, there is a clear pattern that the Government favour minor technical amendments to legislation on this matter, rather than upping their game and truly calling time on the practices that the public clearly want to see ended. Today they have an opportunity, by supporting our new clause, to show that they understand the need to be clear with the public, to recognise the need to strengthen their approach on this matter, and to commit to coming back with the resources and legislation that are needed to truly make a difference.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
I want to make a few points, principally on amendment 77. Perhaps I can start by saying that I do not agree with the Opposition spokesman, who has just addressed the House so eloquently, that the Government have been slow to tackle tax abuse and tax fraud. I should, at the outset, draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I think the Government have been very good at tackling tax fraud, starting in 2010 when this Conservative Government first came into office. The reforms that were introduced by George Osborne, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, deliberately targeted tax abuse and set up a number of measures to try to ensure that we clamp down on it, as it is common cause on both sides of the House for us to do.
Where I do agree with the Opposition spokesman is in his reference to the Panama and paradise papers. That excellent work by journalists from, I think, The Guardian and the BBC exposed the fact that money laundering, dirty money and abuse in that sector were far more rampant than we realised. That is one of the reasons why the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) and I have made so much of an effort in this House, along with colleagues on both sides of the House, to try to clamp down on money laundering and dirty money and ensure that we have sunlight as the best disinfectant on all of this. That is why we introduced the open public registers of beneficial ownership for the British overseas territories, and why we strove so hard to persuade the Crown dependencies—successfully, now—to introduce those same open registers. That is the way in which we stop kleptocrats, bent politicians, warlords and corrupt businesspeople from stealing from the Exchequer but also, of course, from Africa and Africans. That was the great benefit of the paradise and Panama papers: they showed so clearly the extent of what was going on.
I thought that the Financial Secretary made some very good points about amendment 77. In general, I do think that the Revenue has enough power over the private citizen in the laws of the land as they stand at the moment. However, the point I would make to the Financial Secretary—he has been most receptive in listening to the right hon. Member for Barking and me about this—is that eternal vigilance is required. As we have seen, and as amendment 77 draws attention to, there is an inequality of arms in this matter. Advisers who set up these schemes often have an aura of authority, because they are lawyers, accountants and professional people, which those whom they advise may not be.
I want more to be done to ensure that, where these bad schemes of tax evasion are put together by professional advisers, they do not get off scot-free while the people they put into these devices, or talk into going into them, take the rap. It is not right that they should just lose the fees that they earn, which I think is currently the position: we should toughen the financial penalties. The Minister handles these matters very well, and I know that he wants this to be more than a senior common room debate. I know that he is conscious of the balance between the rights of the individual and making sure that people are not able to evade tax. I know that he does think seriously about that, so I would just urge him to always keep an open mind on this issue.
This is a familiar theme. In this year of Britain’s presidency of the G7, we should remember the work that was done by George Osborne for the last G8, at which he championed the open registers that were introduced in Britain in 2016. It is a proud achievement of this Conservative Government that, at the last G8, they moved the world towards focusing on these illicit flows of money, and this year with the G7, I hope that the Minister will consider it important as well. I completely accept that we are not going to divide the Committee on amendment 77. What the Minister said about the amendment was extremely constructive and I hope he will feel it right for the House to return to this matter on very regular occasions, in pursuit of what unites us all: that people should pay their fair levels of tax.
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), with whom I work very closely on this issue; it demonstrates the best of Parliament that we are able to do so across the House.
I rise to speak in support of amendment 77, which stands in my name and that of members of the all-party group on anti-corruption and responsible tax. Our proposals command support across the House, and I know the Minister will therefore address this issue thoroughly and seriously, not just in his response today but in the work that I know he is doing to bear down on those who enable and support tax avoidance and financial crime. I simply say this to the Minister: he may have reservations about the technicalities of our proposals, but he should at the very least accept the principle that underpins them and say so today.
Big corporations and high net-worth individuals who engage in tax avoidance schemes and financial crime do not dream up these schemes on their own; they are invented and developed by the huge army of tax professionals—accountants, lawyers, banks and advisers—who spend their working life trying to identify loopholes and wheezes. The schemes they devise do not just help but actively encourage people not to pay their rightful contribution through tax to the common purse for the common good.
At present, HMRC may slowly and belatedly catch up, and may deem such schemes unlawful. If it does so, the individuals have to pay up and sometimes face enormous tax demands, but the enablers of tax avoidance mostly get away scot-free; at worst they may lose the fees they earned from setting up the scheme for their clients. Our amendment would hold these enablers to proper account. If advisers and promoters involved in a scheme know that the scheme does not work, they are committing the criminal offence—mentioned by the Minister—of cheating the public revenue. They are breaking the law, so they should be pursued, charged and convicted with a criminal charge.
That does not happen now, and our amendment seeks to make it easier for the enforcement agencies to pursue criminal prosecutions. Not only would they hold the advisers to account, but I am completely convinced that the threat of a criminal prosecution would act as the most effective deterrent and bring to a halt many of the activities of these rogue advisers. It would be the most efficient way of tackling tax avoidance at source. It is a common-sense approach to the problem, and it would be welcomed by all taxpayers, who are so frustrated by paying their tax unquestioningly while seeing others avoid tax or break the law. It would restore confidence in the tax system. It is a good idea, and I hope that when the Minister responds he will say that he shares our view that we need to amend our legislation to make it easier to pursue and prosecute advisers who deliberately promote egregious schemes that are unlawful.
I know from my time chairing the Public Accounts Committee how embedded the culture of avoidance, evasion and financial crime has become in our financial services sector. We saw it plainly with the revelations from HSBC, with the Falciani leaks from its Swiss branch. It was there in the PricewaterhouseCoopers leaks keenly exposing that firm’s activities in Luxembourg. The Panama papers uncovered the shenanigans involving the law firm Mossack Fonseca, while the Paradise papers disclosed the nefarious activities of another law firm, Appleby. While it may no longer be seen as cool to be involved in tax avoidance, the latest leak of documents contained in the FinCEN papers spells out the complicity of major global banks in facilitating and enabling financial crime, from tax avoidance through to fraud and money laundering.
Normal working people, however, often suffer the most. The film tax relief that was exploited ruthlessly by the company Ingenious Media left many facing huge tax demands, though the chief executive, Patrick McKenna, is still lauded through public appointments in the creative sector. The loan charge scheme was promoted vigorously by enablers. They walked away scot-free, but left devastation in their wake. I understand from the all-party parliamentary loan charge group that seven suicides have been reported to the group—people driven to suicide because they were conned by enablers into participating in a scheme that later unravelled. That is truly shocking.
I welcome the consultation that the Government have launched on tackling the promoters of tax avoidance. The all-party parliamentary group will be preparing a response to that consultation. Most advisers, of course, work in an honest and straightforward way, and we do not want to pursue with criminal charges those who make an honest mistake, but there are still individuals, companies and organisations who deliberately and wilfully promote egregious schemes that they know do not work. Such enablers move quickly, they are well resourced and they are well capable of outmanoeuvring HMRC. As soon as one wheeze is uncovered, they move on to the next. Worst of all, they act with impunity, safe in the knowledge that they will escape any real punishment if they are ever caught.
Why do these rogue advisers not get prosecuted? The answer lies in what the Minister said: HMRC has to demonstrate dishonesty to proceed against them and it is virtually impossible to do so. The advisers can always claim that they honestly believed that the scheme would work. We therefore want a new test, which makes criminal prosecutions feasible and practical.
We suggest adopting the test that is in place for the work of the GAAR—the bar for prosecution for those ne’er-do-wells should be just as stringent. It would simply make it possible and practical to take action. HMRC would have to demonstrate not simply that the avoidance scheme was not reasonable; it would have to demonstrate that it was not reasonable for anybody to think that the avoidance was reasonable. Sorry for the complication, but that is a double reasonableness threshold. I assure the Minister that that double reasonableness test is in effect the same as the “beyond reasonable doubt” test that he mentioned in his opening remarks. Of course, it would be easy for enablers to avoid prosecution —they just need to stop promoting or recommending tax avoidance that is so aggressive that they know it will fail.
Our amendment tackles a gross injustice in the system. People are completely fed up with reading endless stories about scurrilous tax avoidance schemes promoted by those working in the financial services sector. The perceived difference in the way that hard-working taxpayers and rich individuals are treated breeds mistrust. We suggest a practical change in the law that would make it possible to pursue the enablers, not because we want to see the courts clogged up with prosecutions against bankers, accountants, lawyers and advisers, but because we think that that is the best way of making those advisers think twice before they promote unlawful schemes. It would deter most of them from trying to cheat the public revenue. I urge the Minister, please, to be bold on the issue, to state today that he will tighten up the law and to give us the assurance that, if he does not like our particular solution, he will come forward in a timely manner with his own proposal.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP) [V]
I am pleased to speak in this debate and to speak to the amendments and new clauses to which I have added my name and which were detailed earlier.
All the SNP amendments relate to schedule 6, under clause 30. Amendments 70 to 72 and 84 and 85 seek to amend subparagraph (3A) of paragraph 2. Taken together, the paragraph would read:
“Where the condition in subsection (1)(l) or (2) is not met in relation to a body or person at any time, but the body or person expects it to be met at any time, the body or person may allow for the condition to be treated as being met until the body or person is not expected to make expenditure on construction operations exceeding £3 million.”
On the face of it, it does not look like a major change, but the amended wording is more in keeping with the spirit of the existing construction industry scheme. It allows, for example, for a de minimis amount of minor works to be disregarded in the operation of the scheme.
Amendment 73 seeks to remove paragraph 3 from schedule 6. I know that the Minister has spoken against this amendment and amendment 74, but we have seen no convincing argument that this change is necessary just now, and we believe that it would be much better for industry to be allowed to continue with the existing scheme for the current year rather than asking it to change the way of doing things. Let us face it, with its being a major part of our recovery from the covid recession, industry has far more important things to concentrate on.
A similar reasoning applies to amendment 74, which seeks to leave out paragraph 4 from schedule 6. That paragraph relates to the way in which the costs of materials purchased for a construction contract are taken into account for tax purposes. The construction industry has had to meet a number of challenges this year. We do not see how changing the way in which it has to account for tax on purchases by a subcontractor for another subcontractor, for example, during this current year will help. We do not see why it needs to be done just now.
New clause 14 requires the Chancellor to report back to Parliament on the impact that the changes proposed in clause 30 and in schedule 6 have had on key economic indicators. One would think that it would be automatic that, when a Government make changes to the tax system, they would go back a wee while later to see whether the changes have had the desired effect. This Government are perennially hopeless at doing that. We seldom if ever see a published assessment of what impact the new legislation or changes to the tax system had. That makes it much more difficult for MPs and the public to hold the Government to account. Even more importantly, it means that, when mistakes are made—that is when, not if—there is no reliable process to identify that and to put things right.
For this Committee sitting alone the Government have had to table no fewer than 22 amendments in order to correct mistakes or to remove inconsistencies and ambiguity from their own Bill which they themselves commended to the House only last week. We can only hope that they have spotted all the mistakes by now, but surely with such an important piece of legislation it makes sense to ask the Chancellor to report back to us to tell us whether it is working, or whether there have been unintended consequences that need to be addressed sooner rather than later.
New clause 15 again requires the Chancellor to report back to Parliament, but this time on the effectiveness of various anti-tax avoidance measures in clauses 117 to 121, and the follower notice penalties in clause 115. I note that the Opposition have tabled something similar, although a bit more restricted in scope.
We welcome the further measures included in this Bill, but they still do not go nearly far enough. Time and again, it has been pressure from SNP MPs that has forced the Government to take any action at all on the scandalous levels of tax avoidance that they continue to tolerate. We still do not have an overarching and workable general anti-avoidance rule. We have an inadequate system of company registration and regulation that makes it far too easy for companies to hide the truth about who really benefits from the profits that they make on the hard work of citizens of these islands and who is really in control of the company. For example, the SNP has highlighted over and over again the need for legislation to combat the abuses of so-called Scottish Limited Partnerships by money launderers and organised crime. As things stand, almost anybody in the world can set up one or several Scottish Limited Partnerships and then use them to get round even the inadequate regulatory and transparency requirements that apply to other companies.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this part of the debate, and I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
It was probably 15 years after we set up our business that our own accountants came to us—we were making reasonable profits by then—and suggested that we take advantage of a tax avoidance measure, and a pretty aggressive one in our view. This was not a particularly unusual accountants—it had a decent reputation locally— but so much money potentially runs through these schemes that some promoters inevitably see an opportunity for themselves.
I must tell the House that we told our adviser that we did not want to take part in such a scheme, and there were two reasons: we believed that people should pay their tax—that we should all pay a fair amount of tax—but also that any person who takes up such measures should be afraid that HMRC will one day come along and say, “Those measures were not appropriate.” By that time, a lot of the money that they think they have saved has gone out in costs to promoters and the rest of it, and they are left with a huge bill.
Had the person who promoted that scheme to us—our accountant—thought that he would potentially end up on jail, I do not think he would have come to us and told us about it. This was a reputable local person, and perhaps he did not even think that tax avoidance at that point was fraud. Nevertheless, it certainly can be fraud, and in many cases it is. If we are willing to hold people to account, ultimately through a criminal prosecution—as HMRC can, of course, as the Minister pointed out earlier—there would be a lot less of this kind of promotion and a lot fewer of these activities.
Before I talk in more detail about that, I want to tackle some of the shadow Minister’s points. It is a little churlish not to recognise the steps that the Government have taken since 2010. There have been 150 measures to tackle tax avoidance; that was at a cost of £2 billion to the taxpayer, but it brought in £250 billion in contributions to our public services. Of course, the Minister said that we need to go further, but it is wrong to simply say that the Government are not doing enough. Some of those measures, such as the digital services tax and the diverted profits tax, are very significant internationally.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
I acknowledge the point that the hon. Gentleman makes and the amount of money brought into the Revenue by the measures, but is he not also conscious that the sheer number of different measures has, for many taxpayers, added to the complexity? We have one of the most complex tax regimes in the world and that complexity often catches people unawares, and costs them lots of money and sometimes their businesses and their homes.
Kevin Hollinrake
I absolutely accept that our tax system is very complex, and I have proposed a number of measures on the Floor of this House to try to simplify it. For example, abolishing business rates and replacing them with an increase in VAT would simplify the tax system, instead of having an online sales tax. However, in terms of this debate I do not think it is the complexity of the issues that catches people out. We can see that 99% of tax avoidance schemes in the UK involve disguised remuneration—these are very contrived schemes. We should look at amendment 77 carefully. As to whether it is unfair on a person who is a promoter of what I would say is an extremely contrived tax avoidance measure, I am not totally sold that that should be a problem.
One of the biggest problems we have is faith in the system. This Government have done a huge amount to reduce the tax gap, which is at a record low of 4.7%, but if there is a £20 billion tax gap from fraud, the person in the street might reasonably say, “Why should I pay my tax?” This creates an incentive then for people to look at ways of avoiding tax. As to whether tax avoidance is fraud, the Government’s own call for evidence last month says clearly:
“The Government recognises that the design of arrangements that are sold as avoidance schemes may in fact enable fraud.”
So there is a good case for being able to take these further measures, as the Government are doing through stop notices, further civil penalties and stopping individuals hiding behind corporate structures.
The trouble is that, as we see in many areas, not least the banking sector, which I am pretty active in through my work in the all-party group on fair business banking, these kinds of organisations see a fine—a civil penalty—as a cost of doing business; the real deterrent for people is a criminal penalty. One of the best examples of this is to be found in a completely different sector, with the personal liability for a director in the construction industry. As soon as that personal liability came in and there was the potential for someone to go to jail if they did not make sure their sites were safe or they did not put measures in place, there was a huge decrease in the number of injuries and fatal incidents in the workplace in construction. That speaks to the point that if there are real criminal sanctions that we are willing to take forward and people think that that is going to happen, this promotion of avoidance schemes will start to drop significantly.
We probably have better resourced areas in terms of the prosecution of avoidance; I believe there are about three and a half times this number of people in the Department for Work and Pensions looking at benefit fraud, despite the fact that it is a much lower level of fraud—the level of benefit fraud is about 10% of that seen by HMRC. A beefing up of the resources in HMRC is therefore something we should consider. We have seen very famous schemes. I believe the Ingenious film scheme cost the taxpayer £1.6 billion, but not a single promoter has been held to account for it. We need more resources, but we should also look at legislation. This country does not have a great record on prosecuting serious fraud. There are a number of examples where the Serious Fraud Office has failed to make charges stick—I think, for example, of cases involving Tesco and Barclays. That is why the SFO wants to bring in more legislation, which the Government have agreed to do, to create a corporate offence of failing to prevent economic crime. This would be a personal sanction on the directors of a corporation that failed to do that. Of course, in banking we now have the senior managers regime that the Financial Conduct Authority put in place following some of the scandals there, when nobody was held to account for the disgraceful abuse of both consumers and businesses through the past couple of decades in the sector. The excellent Minister might say that amendment 77 is not the right vehicle for this, but some beefing up of the legislation to make it easier to prosecute fraud—criminal activity—is something that we should seriously consider.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) [V]
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate and to follow the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake).
I welcome the action that the Government are finally taking against the promoters of tax-avoidance schemes. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I will be supporting new clause 29, which would require the Government to review the impact of provisions relating to tax avoidance and publish regular reports that set out the findings. We will also support amendment 77, which would cause the promoters of abusive tax-avoidance schemes to be treated as acting dishonestly for the purposes of criminal prosecution for tax offences, without dishonesty having to be proved separately by the prosecution. We believe that the measures we are considering are what the Government should have been doing earlier. The promoters of abusive tax-avoidance schemes have deprived the public purse of millions of pounds and defrauded countless people who thought that their services and the advice offered were legitimate.
The action being taken now comes too late for so many victims of these schemes who had no intention to do anything unlawful or to evade taxes and have already been unfairly penalised. Liberal Democrats are committed to clamping down on tax avoidance, but the retrospective nature of the loan charge is causing uncertainty and financial hardship to ordinary working families, most of whom acted in good faith. Thousands of IT support professionals, social workers, teachers, cleaners and nurses—all of whom acted in good faith, based on professional financial advice that what they were doing was legal—now face immense pressure, which is impacting on their mental health and causing serious financial hardship, which will only be magnified by the economic consequences of covid-19.
Meanwhile, online tech giants and international corporations have been avoiding tax for years but have not been clamped down on in the same way, even internationally. With the load charge, the Government are going after nurses and teachers. Like many other right hon. and hon. Members in this place, I have a number of constituents who find themselves in exactly the position that I have described, facing retrospective taxation since HMRC changed its rules in 2017. One constituent whom I have been representing has attempted to correspond with HMRC on anomalies in the settlement agreement policies, but to no avail. Although he is categorised as fully compliant and not liable for the loan charge and pre-2010 loans, he is not being refunded any settlements that include pre-2010 amounts. The fully compliant are not benefiting from the pre-2010 amendments, while other categories are.
As I have said, we undoubtedly need to clamp down on tax avoidance—the deliberate evasion of taxes—but we should be clamping down on those who promoted it, not on those who took advice believing that it was lawful. The Chancellor must also go further than his recent decision merely to limit, in the Budget, the retrospective element of the charge to 2010; he must end the retrospective application of the rules altogether so that nobody who fell victim to such schemes before 2017 should be unfairly penalised. The Government must also further re-examine IR35.
I shall end my speech there, but it is important that we recognise that the steps that we must back today should have come before us much earlier.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), but I must pick up on one of her points. She indicated that the Government had done nothing to crack down on online companies, but the evidence shows that the Government took action to ensure that if we buy something from an online marketplace such as eBay, Wish or Alibaba, the seller charges VAT. That was a significant source of lost income for the Exchequer.
It is right for Opposition Members to raise the Panama papers, because they highlighted to the general public—to residents up and down the country—the actions of a small number of tax-avoidance advisers and very wealthy individuals who did not want to pay their fair share. I think it is right that we should look at that in the context of the action that the Government have taken.
Catherine West
How delightful it is to see you in the Chair, Ms McDonagh. I am very pleased to speak to amendment 77 and new clause 29, and to have listened to the excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (James Murray). I pay tribute to Members from across the parties who have stood up for those who have been so badly affected by the loan charge scandal, and I was particularly pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) speaking so eloquently on Radio 4 on Sunday evening. We are getting these important messages across.
I also wanted to pay tribute to the important work that is being done by the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax, led by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), on simplifying things and making the basics better, for example by improving the Companies House regulations. I understand that some of that is coming forward shortly, but the general picture is that things are quite slow.
It was lovely to listen to the hon. Member for Burnley (Antony Higginbotham) speaking about the importance of taxation. Once upon a time, I am sure that would have been quite a tricky topic for certain Conservative Members to talk about, but there is a new wind blowing. It is great to hear President Biden talking about the global minimum corporate tax level and the importance of an online sales tax, and even to hear our own Government leading the charge across Europe on the importance of introducing a digital sales tax and simplifying things to bring in the important public funds that we all need to keep our society going.
The scale of tax offences is clear, with a recent TaxWatch report finding that between 2009 and 2019, the UK prosecuted 23 times as many people for benefits offences as for tax offences—that theme has been echoed in today’s speeches—despite the fact that the value of tax fraud is nine times higher than that of benefit fraud. We know that American research has shown that for every $1 the Internal Revenue Service invests, it gets back $10 of benefit for the public purse, and I wonder what the consultation the Treasury ran said about incentivising officers based in HMRC so that the more money brought back, the more colleagues come on board to help them in their important work.
We know that a lot of this work is about priorities, and we need to prioritise criminal prosecutions so that there is not a decrease in taxation, as there has been of 39% since 2015. We need to look at the balance of the DWP employing 3.5 times more staff in compliance than HMRC. We know that we have to improve that balance, because quite simply there is much more money to be found in illicit finance and among tax avoiders than from those eking out a living on universal credit or personal independence payments.
The Minister will I am sure make it clear in his remarks that the Bill is intended to tackle some of these issues and to amend that imbalance, and I look forward to hearing that. However, I make the case for quicker progress so that we can move forward as fast as possible, particularly given the fact that, as the hon. Member for Burnley mentioned, the furlough scheme and some of the other schemes are quite expensive, and therefore the need to find more in this way from tax evasion is ever more pressing.
I want briefly to mention the importance of the provisions on freeports and the corporation tax super deduction, which do not appear to come with sufficient tax avoidance and evasion safeguards. I hope that during the debate—perhaps not right at this instant, but over the course of today—we will get some reassurances on that matter. In March, the Financial Secretary was unable to say how many additional staff HMRC plans to recruit to deal with taxation, duty, excise and customs issues pertaining solely to freeports, but I hope that that information is forthcoming. Given the attention and focus the Government gave to these announcements, we would have expected them to get the basics right, but we still have some questions that are outstanding.
While the Government are bringing forward—perhaps deliberately, some of us would say—a weak set of measures in the Finance Bill, other tools that we need to tackle evasion and avoidance, such as the draft Register of Overseas Entities Bill, could well sit gathering dust, since they were initially announced quite some time ago. Will the Minister use today as an opportunity to outline his views on that particular Bill?
On the question of illicit money, do not forget that our own Intelligence and Security Committee called London a “laundromat” for illicit and dark finances, often coming from Russia. I would hope that the Minister will redouble his efforts to understand how to clamp down on the facilitation of those finances through the UK financial system. We would have expected such a description of our capital city to force action from the Government, but we are still waiting to see exactly who owns some of the foreign companies buying up British property. Can someone still walk in and purchase a £1 million property in cash, and does the Minister believe such a way of purchasing expensive properties in London is appropriate?
Kevin Hollinrake
I draw the Committee’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Is the hon. Member aware that there are very strict requirements for people involved in the property market to check the identity and the source of funds of those she has just described?
Catherine West
I thank the hon. Member, and it is always lovely to have an accountant in the room. If there are some improvements, we are very grateful for them.
Ruth Cadbury
If I may intervene, London is one of the few cities that has no residency or nationality rule for owning residential property, and many very high-cost cities for residents to live in, such as Vancouver and Auckland, have such rules. Could this Government consider such rules, because this issue has helped to trigger the explosion in housing prices, particularly in London, but also in our other large cities?
Catherine West
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. I am sure it has not escaped the Treasury’s attention that prices of the top 1% of properties in the country—mainly in London—have been skyrocketing, when everybody else’s house prices have been going up by a little. That differential is quite frightening. In this terrible time when our economy has shrunk by 11%, who can afford to buy properties worth several million pounds, and do we know enough about these individuals? We know that there are big gaps in the way that Companies House operates, in terms of simply understanding who owns what, and simplifying that is the sort of thing that would make the work of HMRC much more streamlined.
I would also like to put on record the wonderful work being done by civic society groups to spread information and education about the importance of understanding taxation, what it does and what it purchases. It is through these campaigns—often outside this House—that we can understand how to change things.
Aside from our international reputation often being questioned on the issue of Russian oligarchs, we know that the lack of action on questioning some people’s contacts with the Kremlin is costing us over £30 billion every year in lost revenue from taxes. That is a lot of money, and it would be better used to pay for the furlough, eliminate child poverty, vaccinate more children in the third world, or pay and equip our NHS staff for the heroic job that they do every single day.
The Government must act without delay and begin by supporting amendment 77 and new clause 29, which are a significant improvement on the weaker proposals put forward by the Government. That would send a signal that the UK will no longer be silent in the face of tax evasion and tax avoidance and is no longer a welcome home for the oligarchs and agents who see the UK as the destination of choice for their ill-gotten gains. I urge the Minister to do the right thing.
Ruth Cadbury
I speak in support of new clause 29 in the name of Her Majesty’s Opposition and cross-party amendment 77. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (James Murray), my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) and the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) on their speeches.
Addressing tax avoidance and evasion is, of course, an important objective of the Treasury, and Finance Bills and other legislation are the vehicles to do that, but as with all tax changes, Government must assess and respond to the unintended consequences of any changes. This Government have a terrible track record on tackling tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance. They have consistently stood in the way of Labour’s calls to clamp down on loopholes and have failed to collect over £30 billion in taxes every year. They have promised to legislate on these issues, but the proposals in the Bill fall far short of any substantive change. Instead, they have been responsible for an increasingly complex system of payment, fraught with difficulties and risks for the unsuspecting worker.
A growing number of working people need to work on a contractor basis, either for personal reasons or because it is the only way of getting work in their sector or with their professional skillset. Increasingly, the alternative to being a contractor is to be a PAYE freelancer—to pay tax in full but without any of the rights of being an employee and all the costs of being self-employed. This is zero-rights employment, and it is unfair.
We need an effective tax avoidance policy that criminalises those promoting tax avoidance, rather than going for the workers inadvertently caught up in them, as this Government and HMRC have been doing with the loan charge in particular. That is the wrong target. While ordinary people who are victims of mis-selling are facing ruin and bankruptcy, the Government have done too little, too late to go after those who promoted the schemes.
I acknowledge that the Bill contains measures to tackle the promoters of tax avoidance and changes the system of penalties, but those measures are extremely limited in scope. Indeed, those changes are not even included in the Budget report costings, which suggests that their financial impact must be minimal. IR35 was enacted 21 years ago to stop the practice of those who, in reality, were permanent, generally full-time workers being paid as contractors through personal services companies, as many were paying much less tax than if they had been employees. It was right to address that tax avoidance, but the Government must address the unintended consequences for workers and the labour market that have followed since then.
Jesse Norman
I am grateful to all those who have spoken in the debate. Let me start with my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), who, as always, brought a robust common sense, as well as the skills of an accountant, to bear, especially when it comes to holding the Opposition to account for some of their comments.
Mr Mitchell
I should defend our hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake). He is not an accountant; he is an estate agent.
Jesse Norman
I have been held to account by my right hon. Friend and I am grateful to him for that, because that power—if I have any power—should always be held to account. Let me put the record straight: my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton is an estate agent, and yet with that estate agency genius he combines the forensic skills of an accountant in holding to account, indirectly, members of the Government and, directly, the Opposition. I thank him for that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton pointed out that these disguised remuneration schemes are highly contrived. It is terribly important to remind ourselves of that. It is all very well to complain about the loan charge, but these are highly contrived schemes. My hon. Friend reminded us—as, indeed, did my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) —of the general rule that all taxpayers are responsible for their own tax, and that if, by implication, a scheme looks too good to be true, it almost certainly is too good to be true. Those are important messages and no Government should wish to weaken that important principle that people are responsible for their own tax.
Ruth Cadbury
I understand what the Minister has said. Of course, most of us are aware of our own tax bands. But how can the Minister expect basic rate taxpayers—a nurse, an IT contractor, somebody working in the film industry, even somebody on minimum wage—to do due diligence when nothing they read or have been sent ever mentions loans, and when they are given a convincing narrative that their tax is being paid for and they do not need to worry? Should not HMRC and the Treasury be addressing this issue, because it is a growing part of the employment market?
Jesse Norman
HMRC is addressing these issues. That is why this Bill has so many measures in it that are focused on the disclosure of tax avoidance schemes, toughening up that regime and improving the regime against the promoters of tax avoidance. But let me say to the hon. Lady that I thought her remark was dripping with condescension towards the ordinary taxpayers of this country. The fact of the matter is that people, from whatever walk of life, are perfectly competent—they do not need to be patronised by Labour Members of Parliament—at working out when something looks too good to be true. That is why so many—such a high percentage; well over 90% of people—do manage to work out what is too good to be true and behave on that basis. To suspect otherwise, when HMRC is absolutely working as hard as it can to make sure that the truth is out there and well understood, and is closing down opportunities for misleading advertising, in a recent initiative with the Advertising Standards Authority and a whole host of other things, is completely wrong.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Antony Higginbotham) for what I thought was a very robust and thoughtful contribution. He is absolutely right to highlight that HMRC has not been slow in this area. He was right to pick up the point about VAT on online platforms, but, of course, that is merely the tip of the iceberg. The hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray) somehow suggested that we were failing to tackle this issue. The tax gap, as he pointed out, is 4.7%—a historic low. Let me remind the House and him of some of the actions that the Government have taken—leadership on base erosion and profit shifting over many years, the diverted profits tax, the corporate interest restriction, the tax charge on offshore receipts, hybrid mismatch rules, our new digital services tax.
Kevin Hollinrake
I very much welcome the digital services tax, which is there to try to make sure that everybody pays their fair share, as the Minister said in his opening remarks. Having said that, it does not apply to Amazon’s direct sales on that platform. It applies only to third-party merchants, so there is not that much of a level playing field between those two different cohorts. Will he look at that in future?
Jesse Norman
Brilliantly, my hon. Friend has intervened just before I was about to mention that we are consulting on an online sales tax, which is a parallel initiative. Indeed, the digital services tax includes the introduction of a new basis for tax—that is, UK user content. That itself is a flag to the energy and innovation that the Government are seeking to bring to this issue, and I thank him for his comments.
The hon. Member for Ealing North asked about the beneficial ownership registry on overseas companies that own or buy property in the UK. As he will know, the Government published a draft Bill. It has gone through prelegislative scrutiny. The process has, for reasons that the House will not need any reminding of or highlighting, been somewhat interrupted over the past year, but the Government plan to introduce the Bill in due course, so I reassure him on that point.
The hon. Gentleman raised the question about minimum corporate taxation. He should know that the Government have been, as I said, in the international vanguard in trying to drive change on base erosion and profit shifting, and processes of international tax agreement through the OECD. We were also in the vanguard of delivering the creation, originally, of the G20 commitments for a comprehensive global solution to this issue, based on two pillars, and we are leading the way, during our G7 presidency, on this issue, as the Chancellor has made clear. So we absolutely welcome the renewed commitment that the US Administration have made in this area, which we think is a very important change.
Finally, I turn to the important amendment 77, which was tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield and the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge). My right hon. Friend was right to highlight the importance of eternal vigilance—I absolutely share his view on that—and he was right, as the right hon. Lady was, to talk about the ever-shifting and evolving ways in which some of the malefactors in this area are ceasing to operate, and, of course, that is true. However, if I may say so, he erred in suggesting that the penalty on the enablers—that is to say, a sum equal to the gross fees to be collected in relation—was in any sense modest or small. It is one of the largest charges in the tax system, and because it is a gross fee, it is of course charged on the total amount of income. It is therefore income on which the promoter will have to recognise all their costs, and indeed any profit and any tax they may have paid, so it is actually a fairly formidable penalty.
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 81, in page 49, leave out lines 14 to 27.
This amendment would mean that the Stamp Duty Land Tax (Temporary Relief) Act 2020 no longer applies to additional dwellings.
The Temporary Chair (Siobhain McDonagh)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clauses 87 to 89 stand part.
That schedules 16 and 17 be the Sixteenth and Seventeenth schedules to the Bill.
Clauses 90 and 91 stand part.
New clause 26—Equality impact analysis (No. 2)—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the equality impact of sections 87 to 89 and schedule 16 and 17 of this Act and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.
(2) A review under this section must consider the impact of those sections on—
(a) households at different levels of income,
(b) people with protected characteristics (within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010),
(c) the Treasury’s compliance with the public sector equality duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, and
(d) equality in England, Northern Ireland and in different regions of England.
(3) A review under this section must provide a separate analysis in relation to each of the following matters—
(a) the temporary period for reduced rates on residential property,
(b) increased rates for non-resident transactions, and
(c) relief from higher rate charge for certain housing co-operatives etc.
(4) In this section “regions of England” has the same meaning as that used by the Office for National Statistics.”
This new clause requires the Chancellor of the Exchequer to carry out and publish a review of the effects of sections 87 to 89 and schedules 16 and 17 of the Bill on equality in relation to households with different levels of income, people with protected characteristics, the Treasury’s public sector equality duty and on a geographical basis.
New clause 27—Fiscal and economic impact of 2% non- resident surcharge—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the impact of section 88 and schedule 16 and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act and once a year thereafter.
(2) A review under this section must estimate the expected impact of section 88 and schedule 16 on—
(a) Stamp Duty Land Tax revenue at the increased rates of 2%, and what the revenue impact would have been if the rate had been 3%,
(b) residential property prices, and
(c) affordability of residential property.”
This new clause would require the Government to report on the effect of the 2% stamp duty land tax non-resident surcharge on tax revenues and on the price and affordability of property.
Abena Oppong-Asare
It is a pleasure to speak for the Opposition on this group of amendments and new clauses relating to stamp duty. I rise to speak on those in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
Amendment 81 will prevent the extension of stamp duty holiday from being used for second homes, buy-to-lets and investment properties. New clause 26 would require the Government to review the equalities impact of this group of clauses, including their impact on households with different income levels and on people with protected characteristics, their compliance with the public sector equality duty and their impact on the different regions and nations of the United Kingdom. New clause 27 would require the Government to review the impact of a non-residential surcharge of 2%, which it is set at in the Bill, and 3%, which, as I shall come on to, the Conservative party previously committed to.
Before I come on to the amendments in more detail, let me say a little about the stamp duty holiday extension. Clause 87 extends the £500,000 nil rate band until 30 June. From July until the end of September, the nil rate band will be £250,000, double its normal level; it will return to the usual level of £125,000 from 1 October. It is estimated that the total cost of this extension will be £1.5 billion by the end of 2021-22. That is on top of the £3.2 billion cost of the initial stamp duty land tax holiday announced in July 2020.
The extension will of course be welcome news for those people in the process of buying a new home who face a cliff edge at the end of March. We know that many people have struggled to complete purchases in time due to the coronavirus restrictions and the significant backlog of pending transactions. In previous debates, Members raised issues of cyber-attacks on council services in Hackney that impacted the planning department and delayed people’s securing mortgages.
However, we have concerns about the broader effects of the policy. Our new clause 26 is intended to encourage the Government to be honest about the impact of the stamp duty holiday on the housing market. The Resolution Foundation says that the lower stamp duty liabilities have contributed to house price rises over the last eight months. House prices in England grew 7% between July and December 2020, which is highly unusual behaviour during a recession. In many cases, the rise in house prices over the period will have cancelled out the benefit of the stamp duty holiday. As the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the Resolution Foundation and others have pointed out, the stamp duty holiday has also had the perverse effect of temporarily removing the advantage that first-time buyers had in the market compared with existing homeowners. This, coupled with rapidly rising house prices, has meant that many first-time buyers continue to be priced out of the market. The Bill does nothing to address the housing crisis that affects millions of families across the country—yet again, a wasted opportunity from this Government.
I turn now to clause 88 and our amendment 81. It is unbelievable that, at the same time as the Chancellor is pressing ahead with a £2 billion council tax rise, he has given another tax break to second-home owners and buy-to-let landlords. This half a billion pound tax break for second-home owners and landlords is the wrong priority in the middle of an economic crisis that is hitting family incomes. Instead, this money could have been used to build nearly 3,000 socially rented homes, which is half the total built in England last year. In Wales, the equivalent tax relief has not been extended to property acquired as investment or as a second home. Labour’s amendment 81 would ensure that the extended stamp duty holiday in England and Northern Ireland followed that approach. I turn to the non-residential surcharge introduced under clause 88. During the 2019 general election campaign, the Chancellor, who was then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, said:
“Evidence shows that by adding significant amounts of demand to limited housing supply, purchases by non-residents inflate house prices.”
He went on to announce a Conservative manifesto commitment to introduce a non-resident stamp duty surcharge of 3%, which would have been spent on programmes aimed at tackling rough sleeping. But clause 88 introduces a non-resident surcharge of 2%, rather than 3%. As yet, we have had no explanation from the Government as to why they have watered down that commitment. We estimate that this means the Government could miss out on £52 million a year in revenue that should have been spent on tackling homelessness and rough sleeping.
Our new clause 27 would require the Government to review the difference between the 2% charge and the 3% charge and to reveal the lost income as a result of that decision. When the Minister stands up, perhaps he will tell us why the Government have moved from 3% to 2%.
We welcome clauses 89 to 91, which provide relief from the annual tax on enveloped dwellings and the 15% stamp duty charge for the ownership and transfer of property by housing co-operatives that do not have transferable share capital. The Treasury has listened to the co-operative housing sector on the issue and that is welcome.
To conclude, we do not believe that the Government’s clauses in this group would do anything to solve the housing crisis we face in this country. Year after year, Government have failed to build the homes we need, especially social and affordable homes. The Government are on track to miss their target of building 300,000 homes by almost a decade. The number of new social rented homes has fallen by over 80% since 2010 and home ownership is down sharply among young people, with 800,000 fewer households under 45 owning their home than in 2010. Without urgent action the housing crisis in the UK will deepen. Instead the Government have decided to give a tax break to landlords and failed to meet their own commitment on the non-residential surcharge. Our amendments will remedy these wrongs.
Jesse Norman
Last spring, we were only just beginning to understand as a nation what the full impact of the coronavirus might mean for us. We were told to stay at home and, for many people, that meant postponing plans that they might have made to move, creating considerable uncertainty. It was evident that the housing market was affected by that and it was made much worse when, on 26 March, buying and selling a property was largely put on hold. While business was enabled to resume from 13 May, there was concern about what the pandemic would mean for the market and for the jobs that rely on the sector.
The Chancellor announced that he would support the housing market through the stamp duty land tax holiday, quadrupling the starting threshold for SDLT to £500,000. That was designed to give a boost—indeed, the boost to the housing market that it needed to thrive through the pandemic. It has thrived: transactions in the last quarter of 2020 were 16% higher than in the same period in 2019. In other words, the SDLT holiday has given hundreds of thousands of families the confidence to buy and to sell their homes at a particularly difficult time. In turn, it has supported the livelihoods of people—tens of thousands of them, or more than that—whose businesses and jobs rely on trade with, through and from the housing market.
Towards the end of last year, it became apparent that the housing industry was struggling to meet the additional demand to move home and that there were delays in processing transactions. That meant that some of those moving home would not be able to complete the transactions that they had entered into until after the holiday ended, through no fault of their own. The Bill therefore extends the stamp duty land tax holiday in order to allow those buyers still to receive the relief. In addition, the nil rate band will be £250,000, double its standard level, until the end of September, in order to allow the market to return smoothly to its normal rates.
The Bill also introduces a non-residential SDLT surcharge. The surcharge will apply to property purchases by non-UK residents who do not come to live and work here, helping to ease house price inflation and to keep housing free for UK residents to buy. Revenue raised from the surcharge will be used to help address the issue of rough sleeping.
The hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare) raised the question about the non-resident surcharge. She may not be aware that, at Budget 2018, the Government announced that a consultation for a 1% non-UK resident surcharge would be published. Following the announcement of the surcharge, HMRC and the Treasury carried out a public consultation in spring 2019. That included questions on whether a 1% rate was set at the right level to balance the Government’s objectives on home ownership with those of the UK remaining an open and dynamic economy. Having listened to stakeholders, the Government believe that the 2% surcharge—twice the original amount contemplated—strikes the right balance in this area. That is the basis on which the surcharge has been set.
The Bill will also relieve the 15% rate of SDLT and the annual tax for enveloped dwellings for qualifying housing co-operatives. That change ensures that these measures are fairly targeted at companies that use so-called envelopes in order to avoid tax on their properties.
Amendment 81 would disapply the SDLT holiday to purchases of additional dwellings. As the Committee will know, the SDLT holiday was intended to give a boost to the entire property market, of which developers and landlords are important parts. Although those buying second homes or buy-to-let properties will benefit from that tax change, they will continue to pay an additional 3% on top of the standard SDLT rates.
The Government have maintained the relative advantage that buyers of main homes had before the tax change. For example, the purchaser of a second home worth £500,000 will still pay £15,000 in SDLT, compared with nothing for the purchase of a main residence. It was a Conservative Government who introduced the phasing out of finance cost relief, and the higher rates of SDLT for the purchase of additional property—all steps towards a more balanced tax treatment between homeowners and landlords.
On new clause 26, HMRC routinely publishes information about SDLT, collected by house price bands and by region. Of course, a full tax impact assessment, including equalities impacts, has been published for each measure.
Extending the SDLT holiday ensures that buyers who were affected by delays in the industry will still be able to receive the tax relief.
In the longer term, the Bill introduces a new surcharge that will help more people on to the housing ladder through the new non-UK residents’ surcharge. It also ensures that stamp duty and the annual tax on enveloped dwellings remain fair by making certain that only those who the Government intend to pay corporate rates of tax are captured.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
I am happy to speak in support of clauses 80 to 91 and also new clauses 26 and 27.
Some of the measures in this cluster of schedules and clauses do not apply to Scotland, where the land buildings transaction tax applies instead following the devolution of the stamp duty land tax. That said, I am sure that the extension of the temporary increase to the stamp duty land tax holiday with no rate band for residential property in England and Northern Ireland that will be given effect by clause 87 will be very much welcomed by those who stand to benefit from it. The increased rates for non-resident purchasers given effect by clause 88 and schedule 16 is something that is long overdue. I am also happy to support the relief from annual tax on enveloped dwellings for certain kinds of properties given effect by clauses 89 to 90 alongside schedule 17, as well as the provisions being made under clause 91 for repayment to co-operatives that are also eligible.
I encourage Ministers to look positively on the reforms of property taxation that have taken place in Scotland since stamp duty was devolved. LBTT replaced stamp duty on 1 April 2015. It is very much a progressive tax in that the rates increase more than proportionately in line with the price of the property to which it has been applied. That has a very valuable role in the housing market with regard to easing house price inflation and, at the same time, exempting nearly 80% of first-time buyers from paying any kind of property tax on their first purchase of a home. My party is committed to maintaining current rates and bands within that tax regime while undertaking a review of the effectiveness of the additional allowance supplement that has also been put in place. It is in that spirit of constant review that we find much to welcome in new clauses 26 and 27, which we consider will merit the support of the Committee.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
As the Committee is aware, this year’s Finance Bill is presented at an unprecedented time in British peacetime history. The pandemic has hit the economy very hard, and the Government have not stood idly by over the past year. Extensive levels of economic interventions have been introduced to protect jobs, businesses and our people in order to help them through this pandemic. The impact of this on the state of the public finances has been drastic, with the budget deficit rising to £355 million in 2020-21 and our national debt rising to £2 trillion.
That is of course not a sustainable position, but, as we know, the tide is turning. The Government’s excellent vaccine planning, procurement and roll-out means that we can now see the end in sight. The economy and society have begun to open up, but we are not there yet. The Budget introduced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in March therefore had to achieve a very delicate balance in maintaining high levels of economic support during the continuing global health crisis while also laying the groundwork to repair the public finances and support our economic recovery.
The part of our economy that is the housing market comes in both property sales and construction. I will address my remarks primarily to the decision to extend the temporary stamp duty land tax holiday. As my right hon. Friend the Minister said, when the pandemic struck and the first lockdown began in March last year, the housing market experienced a sharp decline in sales, falling by 43% in the second quarter of the financial year compared with the same period of the previous year. Historically, a sharp drop in transactions, if left unchecked, has led to a fall in the level of house building. The Government’s action in introducing revised thresholds at the lower end of the market, abolishing stamp duty on the first £500,000 of the purchase price and setting the level at 5% for the next £425,000, has greatly alleviated the problem. In my constituency of Orpington, the average house price is currently £528,000, and the Government’s intervention has reduced the level of stamp duty on an average transaction by 91%, leading directly to a strong recovery in the local housing market.
That recovery is also reflected in the picture nationally. According to HMRC figures, in the third quarter of the most recent financial year, housing sales increased exponentially on the previous quarter, and in the fourth quarter transactions were at their highest level since 2007. In the short term, that is extremely welcome because the Government have achieved their objective of stabilising the housing market and maintaining confidence in the construction market. By introducing an extension of the initial stamp duty holiday, followed by a tapering of relief, the Government have taken steps both to remove the danger of a cliff edge that could have reversed all the good work done in the latter half of last year and to prevent an unsustainable long-term boom in house prices. I believe that is the right approach at this juncture.
In the longer term, though, I urge the Government to take a long, hard look at the structure of stamp duty. Stamp duty thresholds have not kept pace with the rise in house prices, meaning that stamp duty has become a significant barrier to purchasing. That is particularly true in places such as Orpington, and even more so in other areas of south-east England in particular, where housing shortages are most acute. In the light of the strong link between house construction and housing transactions, coupled with the Government’s desire to ramp up house building and level up the country, a review of the wider stamp duty regime would bear consideration. However, that is an argument for another day, once the battle with the pandemic is finally won.
For the moment, I believe that the extension of the stamp duty until the end of June is the right move, and its tapering from the end of June until October is both proportionate and unwelcome. I will support the Government on the issue this evening.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
The stamp duty holiday tells us all we need to know about the Government’s priorities. Amid an awful pandemic that has seen the highest death rates in the world, when something like 4 million people have been infected and many of them will face long covid, and when something like 7.6 million people are in hunger, we need investment in the wider economy to get us moving again. In fact, with the stamp duty holiday the Government have spent much of £5 billion, over two years, on second homes. That £5 billion could have paid for 5% increases in nurses’ salaries over 15 years, given that a 5% increase would cost £330 million after allowing for the recovery of the tax on the money given in the first place.
In any case, it is not clear that the stamp duty holiday was at all necessary to stabilise the housing market, because immediately as the pandemic began to hit, the Bank of England reduced interests rates and in so doing reduced mortgage costs, supported prices and increased landlords’ margins at a time when tenants were still required to pay their rents. Given that the Bank of England had already taken action to support the market, the stamp duty holiday simply increased house prices by something like 7% between July and December 2020. That is not the right priority, and it is certainly not the right priority to invest money in second homes for people who are basically making money out of that investment from taxpayers and boosting the prices that first-time buyers face. That is why in Wales, where we have a Labour Government, second homes were not included in the stamp duty holiday, which was quite right. I therefore support amendment 81. Indeed, in Wales, we have made provision so that there are no rough sleepers during this pandemic, whereas in England, of course, there are.
The stamp duty holiday will mean that first-time buyers will find it more difficult to buy a house because deposits will need to be bigger. We are moving to a situation in which young people who want to buy a house will almost always have to depend on their parents to do so, so the distribution of the opportunity to buy a house in Britain is getting worse and worse.
In a nutshell, this Budget should have invested in all our opportunities to raise productivity, increase the number of jobs, focus on the future and keep people healthy. Instead, it has been seen as an opportunity to focus on widening inequality unnecessarily. I very much support the Labour party’s amendments.
The Temporary Chair (Sir Charles Walker)
We now go to Christine Jardine, who is joining us virtually.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
I speak in support of the Bill and against the amendment. The stamp duty holiday has been an unequivocal success in stimulating the market, and I welcome its extension. Many of my constituents will also welcome the surcharge for non-UK residents. In my constituency, many foreign investors buy flats and houses as financial investments, and often these lie empty; in effect, they are bank balances in the sky. This has real implications for my constituency. It leads to hollowed-out communities, and it makes it very difficult for shops, restaurants and businesses to be viable.
I welcome this Government’s focus on house building. Last year, we built 243,000 houses. That is the most in 33 years. For so many of my constituents, buying a house is almost an unobtainable dream. We need to build more houses, and we need to build more affordable housing. That is especially the case in London, where the Labour Mayor’s record of building housing has been lamentable. In 2016, he was given a budget of £4.62 billion to build 116,000 houses. How many had he done by December? Only 56,000—less than half. It is lamentable.
I also welcome the Government’s new measures on guaranteeing mortgages up to 95%. Again, this will help my young constituents and key workers to get on to the housing ladder. In my borough of Kensington and Chelsea, we have so many private renters. Some 44% of my constituents are private renters, because people cannot afford to get on to the housing ladder. Rent is a huge proportion of my constituents’ incomes. Rent is 26% of the median average income nationally. In my constituency, it is a whopping 75%, so I welcome all the support to get young people in my constituency on to the housing ladder.
I support the measures in the Bill, but like my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), I encourage Government to be more radical when it comes to stamp duty and to make a fundamental reform. Stamp duty is essentially a tax on social mobility. It prevents people from moving closer to new work opportunities. It prevents young and growing families from moving from one to two-bedroom flats to bigger family houses. It prevents older people from downsizing.
In my constituency, it has led to very perverse consequences. People cannot afford to move, so they start extending their houses. That has led to an onslaught of basement developments. One house in my street went down an extra three storeys below the lower ground floor. That has now been banned by my council, but this causes undue distress to my constituents and intolerable noise and disruption that goes on for prolonged periods. We have to make it easier for people to move.
Christine Jardine
Thank you, Chair. Apologies, I do not know what happened just then, but it is now a pleasure to take part in this debate.
I will be supporting amendment 81, as will the Liberal Democrats, which would ensure that the stamp duty land tax holiday no longer applies to the purchase of second homes. I will keep my remarks short, in the light of the earlier mishap. Suffice it to say that we believe that the SDLT holiday is not effective in helping first-time buyers on to the housing market. Giving a tax break to people who have already saved money for their property and can already afford a mortgage does not entirely solve the problem. Extending the SDLT holiday would serve only to avoid a cliff edge, depriving the Treasury of much-needed funds at a time when there are many extremely pressing calls on our public finances. Combined with the new lower deposit mortgage scheme launched in the Budget, its only effect is to increase demand for housing without increasing the supply of homes. For me, and for the Liberal Democrats, that is crucial. Members can see where I am going with this: we need to increase the supply of homes.
The Government need to take steps to increase the number of homes being built. They first must make and then keep to their targets, support local authorities that want to build new homes and enforce affordable homes targets. That must include building 100,000 new social homes a year. The Liberal Democrats have proposed a new rent to buy scheme, where people can build up shares in housing association homes through their rent. I ask the Government to examine the merits of that proposal. These steps would be more effective in getting people on to the housing ladder. Therefore, I ask that the amendment be supported and I ask the Government to consider the rent to buy scheme as a way of realistically helping people on to the housing ladder without increasing demand for housing that is not there.
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I very much welcome many of the measures in the Finance Bill, particularly the measures on stamp duty. Like many people who called for a stamp duty holiday, I welcomed it when the Government announced it and I am glad to see that it has been one of the most successful stimuli to economic activity that the country has seen. The moribund market is now racing ahead, albeit possibly slightly too fast. I recognise that homeowners need certainty—many of them are in the middle of transactions —so this is good. We are not out of the pandemic yet, so I welcome the Government’s move to extend the stamp duty holiday to the end of June. I also welcome the fact that they are removing the steep cliff edge and replacing it with a smaller cliff edge by tapering it out and extending it at a lower rate until the end of October. Those are both good measures that will keep the housing market going and give certainty to homeowners.
I do not support amendment 81, which proposes that these measures should not apply to second homes, although I understand the social justice argument behind it. The purpose of the stamp duty holiday is to stimulate economic activity, and whether a home is being bought to live in or as an investment property, that still involves economic activity in the housing market. Our focus here is on stimulating the market, and both those activities have equal effect.
Back in 2012, I co-founded an organisation called the HomeOwners Alliance, Britain’s first and only consumer group for homeowners. Our aim was to champion homeowners and aspiring homeowners and to help people to get into the housing market, recognising that home ownership is a valid aspiration for all young people, and indeed older people, and that the primary role of homes is to be lived in. They are not investments or casinos; they are to be lived in, and that should be the role of Government policy.
I wrote various papers on the reform of stamp duty. I will not go on about the details, but there were two particular reforms that I called for. One was an increase in the stamp duty on second homes, investment properties and buy-to-lets. The other was an increase in the stamp duty for non-residential buyers. The Government have already introduced the first of those, and I think they have raised almost as much money from that as they do from residential stamp duty. Now, in this Bill, they are introducing the stamp duty surcharge for non-residential buyers—the people who want to buy homes in this country but who have no intention of living in them. As a country, we have been very generous to such people—far more generous than most other countries—but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan) said, this has a real cost in terms of preventing other people from buying a home that they actually want to live in.
It is very welcome that the Government are introducing the 2% surcharge for non-residential buyers who do not want to live in the UK. It is right that it should start low—2% is quite low; that is often the fee that we pay to the estate agent—but the Government should monitor it. There will be an opportunity to increase that rate, while ensuring that doing so does not have really bad effects on the market but that it does have an effect on demand and helps to free up properties for people who want to buy a home to live in. The money from these measures is being used to house rough sleepers, which is very welcome, but in the longer term as we raise the rate and more money is brought in, I would use that revenue to reduce the burden of stamp duty for those buying homes that they want to live in. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington so eloquently said, stamp duty is a big burden for homeowners. Following those thoughts for the future, I will be fully supporting the Government’s policies.
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak on this part of the Finance Bill, and I want to start by saying thank you to the Treasury for listening to people’s suggestions relating to the stamp duty land tax holiday and for listening to the voice of the industry, which called for this extension. The original decision at the start of the pandemic to provide that stamp duty holiday was brilliant. It worked. It was the right measure at the right time, and it stimulated our economy and resulted in an almost 33% increase in the amount of home moves. It kept the whole show on the road. Now, as my hon. Friends have mentioned, the decision to extend it will remove the cliff edge that we could have faced when it went away, along with the tapering of other support packages.
These are sensitive times, and there are fiscal measures in place that are carefully balanced to stimulate growth, support people, jobs and businesses, and project confidence to the markets so that we can credibly borrow all this money to invest in our covid response, but this stamp duty holiday cannot go on for ever; it is after all, a revenue-negative intervention from the Treasury, despite the wider economic stimuli that it creates for the painters, movers, builders, white goods salesmen and so on.
So what do we do with a problem such as SDLT? I do not believe that it is simply a case, as some might say, of replacing one tax with another. We do too much shuffling and tinkering with our taxation system and our housing market. As a result, our taxation system is fiendishly complicated. However, this is our opportunity for radical reform, and this clause proves it. We need to look at the role of property values in locally raised revenue. We need to include our commitments on net zero and levelling up, as well as the target of building 300,000 houses a year.
Other interventions, such as the freeport scheme, can provide an excellent place to start. Let us put that idea on steroids. Let us have special economic zones to deliver levelling up and green homes, and sustainable investment in businesses, jobs and homes and the infrastructure that goes with them. With levers such as the super deduction combining with our global Britain approach, we can reach out to the world to get more foreign direct investment, more onshoring of manufacturing and more global brands relocating to those areas that we will level up.
The property tax element is fundamental here because it relates to the homes that people live in—the people who will do the jobs that will benefit from this investment and whom we will support through the levelling-up agenda. To put it simply, we cannot do levelling up without fixing the housing market, and the way we tax it, and what we disincentivise and incentivise as a result of that taxation, are a great place to start. I therefore fully support this clause.
Jesse Norman
I do not think I will ever give a more popular speech than the one I am going to give now, because I just want to thank everyone who has made comments. I thank the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare) for her remarks, which I have already answered. I thank colleagues for the speeches they have made to explore the effects, purpose and potential limits, even, of the stamp duty land tax and the holiday. I ask Members to support the clauses, and I will sit down.
Abena Oppong-Asare
This has been a good debate, and I too thank Members on both sides of the House for their contributions. Members on both sides have spoken on behalf of their constituents about the impact of the stamp duty holiday, the challenges of buying a home and the need for more action to make affordable housing a reality.
As I said in my opening contribution, the Opposition simply do not believe that the Government should be handing a half a billion pound tax break to buy-to-let investors and second home buyers. Once again, this is the wrong priority from a Government who are letting families down. Labour’s amendment 81 would end that unfairness, and I want to press it to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Temporary Chair (Sir Charles Walker)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 64, in clause 93, page 54, line 15, leave out
“substitute for the period for the time being mentioned there such other”
and insert “increase the”.
This amendment would ensure that the Treasury can only increase, and not decrease, the period for which the temporary 12.5% reduced rate of VAT for the hospitality and tourism sectors applies.
Clauses 93 to 96 stand part.
That schedule 18 be the Eighteenth schedule to the Bill.
Clause 97 stand part.
That schedule 19 be the Nineteenth schedule to the Bill.
Clauses 128 to 130 stand part.
New clause 16—Review of changes to VAT—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the impact on investment in parts of the United Kingdom and regions of England of the changes made to VAT by sections 92 and 93 of this Act and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.
(2) A review under this section must consider the effects of the provisions on—
(a) business investment,
(b) employment,
(c) productivity,
(d) GDP growth, and
(e) poverty.
(3) A review under this section must consider the following scenarios—
(a) the extension of temporary 5% reduced rate for hospitality and tourism sectors is continued until 30th September 2021, and
(b) the extension of temporary 5% reduced rate for hospitality and tourism sectors is continued until 31st December 2021.
(4) In this section “parts of the United Kingdom” means—
(a) England,
(b) Scotland,
(c) Wales, and
(d) Northern Ireland;
and “regions of England” has the same meaning as that used by the Office for National Statistics.”
This new clause seeks a review comparing (a) the extension of temporary 5% reduced rate for hospitality and tourism sectors being continued until 30 September 2021, and (b) the extension of temporary 5% reduced rate for hospitality and tourism sectors being continued until 31 December on various economic indicators.
New clause 30—Review into the effects of replacement of LIBOR—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must undertake a review within six months of the passing of this Act of the effects of sections 128 and 129.
(2) This review must consider—
(a) the implications for tax revenue,
(b) effects on financial stability, and
(c) effects on businesses that use LIBOR as a benchmark, including businesses offering supply chain finance.”
This new clause would require a review into the effects of the provisions of the Bill about replacing LIBOR.
Jesse Norman
May I say how much I love your exuberance, Mr Walker? It is never better in evidence than it was just now. Perhaps we are all getting a bit demob happy after 10 hours of close consideration of the Bill.
The Finance Bill includes clauses that extend temporary VAT relief for the hospitality and tourism sectors; that extend digital record keeping for VAT purposes to all businesses; that give businesses longer to make deferred VAT payments; and that add S4C, the Welsh language television channel, to an existing VAT refund scheme for public bodies. A customs clause will enable businesses that export steel into Northern Ireland from the EU to pay the same tariffs and access the same UK quotas as other UK businesses, instead of facing the prohibitive duties and quotas set out in EU legislation last year. Finally, banking clauses make changes to existing tax rules to ensure that they continue to operate as intended following the transition away from LIBOR and other benchmark rates, and update the powers to make amendments to the bank surcharge, the bank loss restriction, the bank compensation restriction and bank levy rules by regulations made by statutory instrument.
Clauses 92 and 93 ensure that businesses will continue to be supported by the temporary VAT relief for the hospitality and tourism sectors. The relief was introduced as an urgent response to the economic challenges faced by businesses in sectors severely affected by covid-19 restrictions. Together, these clauses will ensure that the relief continues to support the cashflow and viability of around 150,000 businesses, as well as the continued employment of more than 2.4 million people.
Amendment 64 seeks to remove the flexibility in the legislation that would allow for changes in the duration of the relief. As with all reliefs in response to the pandemic, the Government continue to keep the situation under review. It is important that the clauses allow for flexibility in what is, after all, still a rapidly changing environment. I therefore urge Members not to support—indeed, to reject—this amendment.
New clause 16 would require a review of the impact on investment of extending the 5% rate of VAT to the end of September, versus the year end, across the United Kingdom. This is technically not possible, because some of the required data does not exist.
Clause 94 will provide the legislative basis for the changes I announced to the Making Tax Digital for VAT service in July 2020, extending the requirement to keep digital records and submit digital VAT returns to VAT-registered businesses with taxable turnover below the VAT threshold of £85,000 from April 2022. Around 600,000 businesses have deferred VAT payments worth an estimated £34 billion as a result of the coronavirus emergency.
Clause 95 and schedule 18 legislate for a new payment scheme that will allow businesses that defer VAT payments from 20 March through to the end of June 2020, which were previously due by 31 March 2021, longer to pay in up to 11 equal monthly interest-free instalments. The new payment scheme has been available since February and will remain available until late June 2021. As of 19 April, HMRC has collected around £13 billion of the £34 billion that was deferred. Approximately 120,000 payment plans have so far been created, with a further £11 billion committed to being paid in monthly instalments. This means that over £24 billion of the total deferred VAT has now been secured as paid or scheduled to be paid. This is proving to be an extremely important and effective intervention.
Clause 96 seeks to add the Welsh language television channel S4C, the recent changes to the operating structure of which mean that it can no longer recover most of the VAT it incurs, to an existing VAT refund scheme for public bodies. That will refund VAT relating to its non-business activities of free-to-air public service broadcasting. The change will come into effect from 1 April 2021.
Clause 97 and schedule 19 ensure that businesses that move steel into Northern Ireland do not have to pay prohibitive safeguard rates as long as there is capacity in the relevant quota. The EU introduced legislation last year that could have led to prohibitive duties being charged on all steel imports into Northern Ireland, making steel more expensive there than anywhere else in the rest of the UK, or indeed in the EU. This outcome would have been quite unacceptable and incompatible with the Northern Ireland protocol. The Government wrote to the UK steel sector in January to communicate a solution that allows Northern Ireland businesses to have access to UK tariffs, including UK quotas instead of EU quotas. This clause and schedule provide the legal basis for that solution.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
I rise to speak to new clause 30 in the name of the Leader of the Opposition and to make a few remarks on the other provisions in this group.
Clauses 92 and 93 relate to the temporary VAT cuts for the tourism and hospitality sectors. These are of course among the hardest-hit sectors of our economy over the past year, and it is absolutely right that this relief is extended. Only today we learned that, of the 800,000 jobs lost in the economy over the past year, 80% are those of people under 35 years old, many of whom previously worked in the tourism and hospitality sectors. Today’s unemployment figures show that it is young people more than any others who have borne the brunt of the job loss impact over the past year.
The vaccine programme of course gives us great hope and a platform for the cautious reopening of the economy, but only two in five hospitality businesses have outside space. Most of them are still not able to operate even under the conditions allowed at the time of this debate, so it is still a very tough time for the hospitality industry. After the experience of the past year, with the upsurges in cases in some countries, the emergence of new variants and vaccine resistance levels remaining uncertain, no one would yet say that we were out of the woods or that there was not still a need to support key sectors of the economy for some time yet. That is why it is right to continue the measures in clauses 92 and 93.
Clause 95 relates to payment schedules for VAT. Again, it is important to show some understanding of the difficulties that businesses have faced in the past year, and it is far better to have a measure that approves a realistic repayment schedule than bring support to an abrupt end and cause repayments at a defined deadline, which could have very damaging consequences for some of the businesses concerned.
Clause 97 and schedule 19 relate to steel moving between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We of course support anything that will make life easier for the steel industry right now. It is the foundation for much of our manufacturing industry, and there is a great deal of uncertainty hanging over various steel plants in the UK right now. It is impossible not to reflect that, while the Government promised us free trade with the rest of the world, we need a clause and a schedule like these precisely because they have not even been able to guarantee free trade within the UK. We hope that this clause and schedule will make it easier to move steel goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but the Minister will be aware that one of the broader uncertainties surrounding UK-made steel is how to avoid its being subject to 25% EU tariffs if quotas are breached in the near future. I wonder whether he will update the House on how discussions on that matter are going and how the Government intend to avoid that. This is particularly important given the wider issues facing the steel industry at the moment.
New clause 30, in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, relates to the transition from LIBOR to other reference rates, and specifically to reviewing the effects on taxation of replacing LIBOR. The new clause would require such a review to take into account the implications for tax revenues of the transition, and the effects on businesses, including those offering supply chain finance.
The new clause relates to clauses 128 and 129, which replace references to LIBOR in legislation with references to an “incremental borrowing rate”. The history of this, of course, relates to the long effort to move away from the use of LIBOR in financial markets. The need to do so arose out of the uncovering of attempts to rig LIBOR in the interests of various individuals in the financial services industry some years ago. Indeed, I believe that the Minister and I were colleagues on the Treasury Committee when all that was uncovered.
The uncovering of those practices exposed much that was bad about what was happening in parts of financial trading at the time, with activity being pursued in the interests of traders rather than customers, rates being rigged for the benefit of those traders and their institutions, and bank chief executives professing ignorance about what was going on inside their own companies. The ability to game the rate was exposed; the use of opinions on cost from submitters to the rate-setting process, rather than its always being based on actual trades, produced the possibility that tiny movements in LIBOR could benefit individual institutions or traders, often by very significant sums given the volumes of trades involved. Potentially, only a tiny movement in rates was needed to generate a very big profit.
However, making a decision to move away from LIBOR to alternative benchmarks based on actual transactions rather than the opinion of traders was, in a sense, the easy part. So far it has taken years; no wonder they are calling it the long goodbye. The difficulty is that LIBOR has been so widely used as a benchmark for contracts around the world. Indeed, the Bank of England estimates that LIBOR has served to underpin contracts worth some £300 trillion across the world and £30 trillion here in the UK. Even in these covid days, those are serious sums.
Moving away from LIBOR without dealing with that contract issue leads to the potential for contractual law disputes. If a deal was agreed based on one interest rate, how will it be affected by the move to another rate? That is not an abstract or unreal problem; it could affect mortgage rates, leases of buildings—all sorts of contracts. Indeed, the issue was highlighted only this morning in the Financial Times, in a story headlined “US lawmakers warned of litigation chaos over Libor”.
The Government have attempted to deal with this legacy contract issue through the Financial Services Bill, which is currently ending its proceedings in the other place. How successful that legislative effort will be remains to be seen. The very least we can say is that the reality of moving away from LIBOR has proved to be more complex than the decision in principle to do so. We may not have heard the end of this matter of transitioning away from LIBOR. That is why it makes sense to have a review of the implications, which is exactly what our new clause 30 calls for.
Clauses 128 and 129 deal with the tax implications of this change and replace legislative references to LIBOR with the term “incremental borrowing rate”. They also provide the Government with powers to make tax changes as a result of the discontinuation of LIBOR.
The Government estimate that the impact of all this on Exchequer revenues will be marginal. That could be right, but the sheer volume of contracts involved here suggests that the need for a review of the implications for tax revenue is real, and that is what our new clause 30 calls for. We believe that such a review should take specific account of the impact on businesses using supply chain finance. After all, that has been very much in the news recently, and it ought to be a field with which Ministers are by now familiar. Perhaps the Minister felt special when he got the call about supply chain finance, because it is not every day that someone gets a call from the former Prime Minister, but now we find that he was not the only one. In fact, there were three Ministers in the Department, one in the Department of Health and Social Care and the industry adviser in No. 10, all of whom got the call about supply chain finance. You could be forgiven for thinking that there are few people living west of the Caucasus who have not heard from the former Prime Minister about supply chain finance. After all that, it seems only right to consider the impact of this provision and on these companies. That is why we have included them in the new clause.
The inquiries on the broader issue will do their work. We may well hear more of this elsewhere, but, for the moment, as regards new clause 30, I look forward to the Minister’s response at the end of the debate.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), and it is a pleasure to speak in this debate. As I spoke twice yesterday and I am on the Bill Committee next week, I will keep my remarks a little short and focus on one measure that is important to my constituency.
I know that the Committee will appreciate that Harrogate and Knaresborough has a very significant hospitality and tourism sector. Using data from UKHospitality, we see that before the pandemic, there were 9,464 people employed by the sector. That puts us in the top 10% of constituencies across the country. The sector is not just a Harrogate and Knaresborough one; it is important to the whole of the York and North Yorkshire economy, accounting for over 75,000 jobs. If we look across the UK, we see that the sector accounts for 150,000 businesses and 2.4 million jobs. It is a huge number of people in a sector that has been one of the hardest hit.
As has been mentioned, among the tax measures in the Bill is the extension of the temporary VAT cut of 5% for the hospitality and tourism sectors. That reduction was first announced last July and was very well received by the industry, but this Bill extends that to the end of September and will then bring in a further reduction of a 12.5% rate for the six months to the end of March next year. This is very welcome, and the points that were made by both Front Benchers, my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East, were absolutely correct.
This initiative understands the pressures that businesses will face. The hospitality sector may be starting again but it is effectively running on empty, having had months of either zero or very limited trading. If I may quote a local businessman, Mr Ian Fozard of Rooster’s brewery and taproom—[Hon. Members: “Hear, Hear!”] Mr Fozard is obviously well known here. He said that
“most businesses like ours need a sustained period of good trading to build back some reserves”.
Mr Fozard’s business is an excellent one and he makes a significant point. The industry needs a period of stability where it can rebuild. One challenge will be when businesses have been through the summer and they face the standard seasonal reduction but may not have built up the cash flow in reserve to see them through the leaner months. This initiative recognises that risk, so the continuity of support through the winter is welcome.
The sector is incredibly varied. We tend to focus on—indeed, the publicity tends to be about—pubs and restaurants, but there are also hotels and guest houses, and in Harrogate, we have the convention centre, which is a significant driver of visitors to the area. It has been a Nightingale Hospital for the last few months and while that is being deconstructed, the convention centre team have launched their restart plans, and I know that their good work is seeing the diary filled with bookings. However, my point is that this is a business-to-business sector, not just a business-to-consumer sector and, as this sector is diverse, so, correspondingly, is its supply chain. It has been very tough for the businesses in that supply chain. I know that, in my own constituency, some businesses in the supply sector will not be reopening, and businesses that have served the industry well for many years are at a crisis point.
I am sure that the safe reopening will release some pent-up demand. There are clear signs of that this week: we have all seen the news coverage and probably seen it in our constituencies, too. However, we should not expect the return of volume international markets any time soon and there will be some domestic customers whose confidence will need rebuilding before they engage with the sector again. For the conference industry, there will be the challenge of knowing just how much of that market will stay online having gone online over the past year. So this is a sector facing huge challenges. It is a sector that clearly interests our constituents and Members here, and it is important for employment, particularly of younger people.
Peter Grant [V]
I seek leave to speak to amendment 64 and new clause 16, which stand in my name and the names of my hon. Friends. We support the cut in VAT to 5% for the hospitality and tourism sectors; in fact, it was pressure from the Scottish National party that initially forced the Government to accept that measure. However, as with much of the Government’s support for businesses during the past 13 months, it is not enough.
Although there has been a welcome easing of restrictions in all four UK nations—in Scotland, we are particularly looking forward to next Monday, when the most significant easing of restrictions since December will come into effect—it is unlikely, indeed impossible, that the tourism and hospitality sectors will get back to anything like normal immediately. It is impossible that we will be back to normal by the end of September, and it is therefore completely irrational for the Government to arbitrarily decide that the 5% VAT rate should end on 30 September, but that is exactly what they have decided. The SNP did, in fact, table an amendment seeking to extend that date to 31 December, but that amendment was deemed to be outside the scope of this Bill. I accept that ruling, but I still urge the Government to get real, not only about the difficulties that the tourism and hospitality sectors are facing but about how long those difficulties are going to last.
In new clause 16, we are asking for the Chancellor to report back to Parliament on the impacts that the 5% VAT rate has had, and—very importantly—to compare that with what would have happened if it had been extended, as we have asked. We know what the 5% VAT rate is supposed to achieve, supporting businesses in those sectors, so the Government should have no qualms about assessing whether or not they have achieved that. Nor should they have any qualms about having their decision compared on an empirical basis with alternatives that have been put forward by other MPs.
The Minister claimed earlier that it is technically impossible to comply with that new clause because the data just does not exist. I find that frankly astonishing. If the political will is there, the data can surely be made available, and if Parliament decides that it is going to pass into law a requirement for that to happen, the job of the Government is to comply with the will of Parliament.
Amendment 64 asks for a minor, but important, change to the wording of clause 93, dealing with the temporary 12.5% VAT rate. Clearly, as I said earlier, we would have preferred that to remain at 5%, but the Government have rejected that proposal and gone for a 12.5% rate until 31 March 2022, presumably with the full 20% rate coming in after that date.
Clause 93, as currently worded, would allow the Treasury by regulation to bring that date forward, so that the tourism and hospitality sector would go back to paying the full 20% VAT rate sooner than the date that this House has agreed. That is not acceptable. Our amendment would allow the March 2022 deadline to be extended if we found—as we may well find—that the sector was taking longer than expected to recover. The only reason for bringing the date forward would be if, by some miracle, the tourism and hospitality sector recovered quicker than expected. I can see no circumstances in which those businesses will have recovered sufficiently for the increase to 20% to be brought forward earlier than March 2022.
In his summing up, may I invite the Minister to contradict me and to tell me that he thinks that that will be possible—that it will be appropriate to bring forward that date? If he cannot see any circumstances in which it will be right for him to use the power to bring that tax increase forward, he should not be asking us to give him the power in the first place.
One consequence of the quaint way that the British Parliament does its business is that, if we want to support businesses by reducing VAT on corporation tax liabilities, it goes in a Finance Bill, but if we want to reduce the liability of other taxes such as non-domestic rates, it does not. The non-domestic rate system is one of the very few parts of the business taxation system that is devolved to the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Government have used that devolved power to ensure that businesses in retail, tourism, hospitality, aviation and newspapers, all of which have been severely hit by covid, will pay no business rates at all during 2021-22. The small business bonus scheme takes around 100,000 businesses out of non-domestic rates altogether and, if the current Scottish Government are re-elected, that will continue for the lifetime of the next Parliament.
In Scotland, we have the lowest business rate poundage in the United Kingdom, the most generous relief schemes and, of course, we have the most progressive income tax system in the whole of the United Kingdom. When we see the benefits that come to the vast majority of people in Scotland from the different approach that our Government have taken using the limited taxation powers at their disposal, I hope the Government will look positively on any request by the new Scottish Government, whoever that might be, to further extend those powers.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD) [V]
I wish to speak to clauses 92 to 95 relating to VAT. This last year has been exceptionally tough on our hospitality industries and I welcome all measures to support our valuable tourism and hospitality businesses as they tentatively begin to open up after the pandemic. Like many others, I was delighted to be able to visit pubs, restaurants and cafés in my constituency last week. I had a particularly enjoyable Friday night drink at the Black Horse on Kingston Hill and a fantastic Sunday lunch at the Glasshouse in New Malden. I am very much looking forward to getting round to all the other excellent venues in my constituency over the next few weeks and months.
However, it is important to remember that tourism and hospitality will not recover overnight. While there is undoubtedly a great deal of pent-up demand for eating out and visiting the wonderful sights and attractions of our great nation, it will not be possible for all businesses to open immediately and in full. And we do not know whether the Government’s road map will be able to progress as planned. Despite the wonderful success of the vaccine roll-out, we are still at risk from new variants and there may still be a need in future to restrict people’s ability to socialise indoors. So, although we welcome the cut to the VAT rate on hospitality and tourism sales to 5% until September 2021, the Liberal Democrats argue that the cut should be extended for the whole of the financial year, instead of moving to 12.5% from September to March.
Household incomes also need time to recover, and encouragement to spend on luxuries and leisure such as meals out should be continued for much, much longer. Indeed, the Government could and should have gone a great deal further to support these businesses and to safeguard the jobs that they create. Many businesses are able to partially reopen this month. There are estimates that up to 60% will not be able to reopen because they do not have outside space. But they will all be faced eventually with large VAT bills, deferred over the last 12 months.
A much better way to support businesses would have been to provide relief on the deferred VAT owed. That would have relieved businesses of an immediate cash burden and freed up that cash flow to invest in stock, staff and making their premises covid-safe. Instead, the Government propose to start imposing penalties from June this year on those businesses that have not yet started repaying this VAT. That will fall on businesses that have had extremely limited opportunities to earn any revenue in the last 12 months. The measures to allow businesses to pay this in 11 instalments is welcome, but will not help those businesses that cannot yet reopen and will not have any cash coming in to pay any of those instalments.
Businesses will also be carrying a great deal of debt and it is very disappointing to see a lack of measures in the Budget to address that. In particular, many businesses will be indebted to their landlords and it is disappointing that the Government have done nothing at all to help businesses with those costs. The Liberal Democrats would have introduced a revenue compensation scheme to help businesses with fixed costs such as rent. The burden of repaying those will fall very heavily on businesses that cannot yet reopen fully.
I am probably unique in the House in having direct experience of implementing Making Tax Digital for VAT reporting in my former role as an accountant for a large organisation. While the overall objectives of the programme are sound, I can tell the Minister from personal experience that they are not always straightforward to implement. I am puzzled as to why the Government think it should be a priority for struggling small businesses to deal with the additional administrative burden of implementing Making Tax Digital, at a time when they are having to deal with the huge burden of reopening in a highly uncertain time, and at the risk of further fines if they do not comply. Surely this could have waited another 12 months. The imperative to close the tax gap surely pales into insignificance when compared with the imperative to support precarious businesses at this time. How can additional red tape and administrative burden be the right response to the current crisis?
In short, this is not a Government who understand the needs or priorities of small businesses; it is a Government who choose to impose punitive costs and paperwork rather than provide effective support.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Dame Rosie, my humblest apologies for being late in attending the Chamber. I was badly caught out by the fact that this debate is way ahead of where I thought it would be. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] There is a silver lining to every cloud.
My good friend and colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), has said it all, but I would like to touch on the issue of the hospitality sector. I am sure the Minister is tired of hearing this again and again, but business in my part of the world is very fragile. The hospitality sector depends on making as much money as it can during the short tourist season because the weather can be so inclement—it is like living on the fat you can make in the good times to get through the winter.
I give credit to the Government for the help that has been given, but I am very concerned that some tourism businesses may still yet shut down permanently. I do not know how many times I have said this in the Chamber, but the fact is that, if we lose one business, two businesses or three businesses, we are impoverishing the tourism product that we can offer in a remote part of the British Isles and, if we do that, there is less for tourists to come, see and do, or to eat and drink, and then we do not get as many tourists coming, and it becomes a downward, vicious circle. The VAT reduction we have had so far is welcome, but could we look at extending it a little further, perhaps for as long as my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park said? That would be very welcome. I have said several times in this place that it would be helpful if the Scottish Government and the UK Government could look at an overall, longer-term strategy to try to get businesses back on their feet, seeing them through the difficult times and nursing them so that we get to—to quote Churchill—the “sunlit uplands” that surely will come our way.
There is one other issue: we need some form of training element in that package. I was talking to Murray Lamont, who owns and runs Mackays Hotel in Wick, and he said: “Talk about training, Jamie, because we need to keep improving the product and making it still better because the competition is out there.” My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park touched on the revenue compensation scheme, and I would be extremely grateful if that could be looked at.
I am tempted to chance my arm and talk about banks, given the name of this section of the debate. Members will have heard me say many times that we have one branch of the Bank of Scotland in the huge county of Sutherland. That is a massive problem, but rather than incur the yawns of those on the Treasury Bench—
Jamie Stone
I will resist the sedentary comments from the Scottish National party Member and conclude my remarks here.
Jesse Norman
Before I wind up the debate, I thank colleagues not only in this debate but in all our previous debates for the engaged and often constructive way in which they have approached the discussion. I also thank my friends on the Opposition Front Bench for their contributions. Let me pick up on some of the themes described.
The hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) raised the question of the Scottish Government’s limited tax powers, but I would put it to him that what is so striking is how little the Scottish Government have used the tax powers that they have. We saw that earlier, when the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) invited the Government to extend a relief to antibody tests, whereas of course it is perfectly within the powers of the Scottish Government to use the tax revenue they generate to fund the differential for antibody tests themselves.
David Linden
I suggest that the Government cannot have it both ways. In one respect, the Minister says that we have done nothing with our taxation powers, but his colleagues north of the border would say that we are the highest taxed part of the United Kingdom. Which is it?
Jesse Norman
The Scottish Government are fully entitled to tax the Scottish people as much as they see fit in the democratic exercise of their mandate. The point I am making is that they have the scope to do so, if they wish, so they should not always be looking to the UK Government on matters of tax if the powers to make the change exist within their own competence and power.
The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) talked about Making Tax Digital for VAT, but she ignored the fact that many small businesses have already joined the Making Tax Digital for VAT programme. The reason they have done so is that they recognise that it gives them a tremendous ability to manage their tax affairs. It also allows them to enjoy the gains of improved IT productivity. We think that those gains are worth having and worth extending to other businesses. That is one of the powerful drivers behind the Making Tax Digital project.
The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone)—always a delight to see in the Chamber, and I am very pleased that he took off his mask so that we could follow his remarks closely—talked about a revenue compensation scheme. Of course, if he reflects for a moment, he will see that the self-employment income support scheme is precisely a support scheme designed to assist people’s incomes. It has proved to be extremely effective in supporting millions of people on that basis.
I think the hon. Gentleman is right to focus on the sunlit uplands. All I can say is that if we come out of this on anything like the basis that we are projected to do by some of the independent authorities, given that this is the worst economic crisis in recorded history, there will be much to be thankful for. I will be delighted if we can get to those sunlit uplands.
Jamie Stone
I am so sorry that the Minister did not hear the first part of my speech—I could run through it again, if that would be helpful. I will chance my arm here. Last summer, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster met business representatives to talk about the sorts of issues in the hospitality trade that I was raising. I wonder whether I could crave, or look for, the favour of the Treasury Bench. Will someone in the Treasury be willing, when suitable, to meet those representatives if they came down to London, to talk about the issues, further to the discussions they have already had with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster?
Jesse Norman
I am very happy to volunteer the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, if the hon. Gentleman wishes to write to him further to that conversation. We are keenly aware of the problem. As Ministers, we spend our lives engaging with different groups. Of course we will look kindly on any suggestion that he might make, as we would on any suggestions made by any Member of this House, but I do not want him to think for a second that we need to do that in order to be keenly aware and abreast of the actual impacts that this present crisis is having on businesses and individuals.
I come to the points raised by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), which were very important. He rightly noted the impact of job losses on the under-35s. It is important to point that out, and we are keenly aware of that within the Government. He asked for an update on the Northern Ireland steel industry situation. As he will be aware, the Government are engaging closely with the EU on this issue. The Northern Ireland protocol is clear that it should be implemented in a way that has as little impact as possible on the everyday lives of people in both Ireland and Northern Ireland. As I say, there is close and constructive engagement on this topic. I am not in a position to give any more details of conversations that are still under way, but I can let him know that they are in those terms, and there has been reporting on this in the newspapers as well.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the question of LIBOR. As he says, he and I were on the Treasury Committee when the full scale of this scandal became clear. He may recall the cross-examination I gave to Lord Grabiner on his inquiry into this issue, in which it was clear that there had been serious wrongdoing. There has been a slow and stately process of reform in this area, and businesses have been aware of the changes. Since July 2017, there has been a considerable amount of work done by the FCA. There has been a public consultation, extended because of the covid situation. There has been close engagement by a dedicated working group with industry. The Financial Services Bill reserves powers to the FCA if that is required in order to support an orderly wind-down. A tremendous amount of work has been done and is being done, and we are content with the situation as it stands.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 92 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 93 to 96 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 18 agreed to.
Clause 97 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 19 agreed to.
Clauses 128 to 130 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
Bill, as amended, reported.
Bill to be considered tomorrow.
Business without Debate
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With the leave of the House, we will take motions 5 to 7 together.
Petitions
Ordered,
That Taiwo Owatemi be a member of the Petitions Committee.
Public Accounts
Ordered,
That Shabana Mahmood be discharged from the Public Accounts Committee and Dan Carden be added.
Treasury
Ordered,
That Emma Hardy be a member of the Treasury Committee.—(Bill Wiggin, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)
British Telecom Group staff redundancies
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
It is, as always, very nice to see you in your place, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The Communication Workers Union and a great many of my constituents have been in touch concerning the plans set out by BT to make thousands of its loyal employees redundant. I therefore rise to present this petition on behalf of my east end constituents who want to see the massive redundancies of BT employees avoided and want to see the BT Group engage constructively in discussions to avoid thousands of people losing their employment in the middle of a pandemic.
The petition states:
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to engage with the BT Group to avoid the compulsory redundancies of thousands of hardworking and dedicated staff members.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of the residents of the constituency of Glasgow East,
Declares that, during the coronavirus pandemic, people have undoubtedly spent more time at home with more people using their Wi-Fi for home working and home schooling; further that, throughout the pandemic, BT, Openreach and EE employees have worked tirelessly to keep us all connected and online; further that MPs from across this House will have received countless emails from BT staff and customers who are concerned with the plans set out to make thousands of BT employees redundant, close hundreds of workplaces and give no pay offer; further that the Communications Workers Union is standing by and is ready to hold negotiations with the BT Group on behalf of workers, hoping to find a solution; and further that the UK Government should engage with the BT Group in order to prevent the thousands of redundancies about to hit hardworking individuals whilst we are in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to engage with the BT Group to avoid the compulsory redundancies of thousands of hardworking and dedicated staff members.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002660]
Nuclear Test Veterans: Service Medal
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Long ago in a far off place, men who were just a short step from boyhood took risks, without recognising them, as they served their nation. The things they did in those distant days have stayed with them for all the years since. They were the servicemen who are now our nuclear test veterans. What they did for their country in the 1950s was of inestimable value; what we have done for them since pales by comparison.
As a Cabinet Office Minister, I persuaded the then Prime Minister David Cameron and then Chancellor George Osborne to make an ex gratia payment—funds of £30 million, indeed—available to nuclear veterans. Those payments were administered through the Nuclear Community Charity Fund, which was established back then, to go some way to recognising the price the veterans paid in declining health and diminished wellbeing. The veterans have struggled with all kinds of conditions attributable to their exposure to radiation during the time of the nuclear tests; worse still is the pain they feel having unknowingly passed those conditions on to their descendants.
I speak today for those aged men and their deserving families to ask for simply this: that the Government recognise Britain’s 22,000 nuclear veterans with a much deserved medal to mark their patriotic service. They were at the forefront of Britain’s foray into the atomic age. Atomic veterans not only risked life and limb then, during the course of their duties, but those brave British personnel faced radioactive smog and searing nuclear heat which altered their very DNA.
At a time of great scientific advancement, mankind’s discovery heralded a destructive power that the world did not then fully comprehend, for the lethal dangers of radiation were not at first fully understood. In the darkness of our ignorance, nuclear test veterans were drafted into a programme in which they stood just a few miles from apocalyptic explosions, flew through nuclear winds, walked through radioactive sand and drank contaminated water.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on bringing this matter forward; he is absolutely right to ask for this medal. Does he agree that it is right and proper that these veterans, like most of our veterans, have appropriate recognition for their service and, further, that although the 2018 reformation of the Advisory Military Sub-Committee was welcome, the delay is not? This must be dealt with as a priority because, as we have seen from the death of one of the last remaining second world war veterans, His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, every month is precious.
Sir John Hayes
Yes, I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. The debt does not disappear just because the years roll by, and the debt that we owe these people can be marked in precisely the way that I have recommended and that he has endorsed.
Nuclear power is an extraordinary force, sufficient to warp the cellular building blocks of man, but that is something that the veterans now—the servicemen then—could not possibly have understood. This was their duty. They were part of a mission to develop a safe and effective nuclear deterrent for Britain that would keep the nation safe and strong throughout the cold war; the fruits of that mission defend the realm to this very day. The details of what nuclear veterans endured in service to their country have been set out time and again over the course of a long campaign to grant them appropriate recognition.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
I commend the right hon. Gentleman for the work he has done over many years on behalf of the nuclear test veterans. One reason given for not giving these men a very well-deserved medal is that they were not put in any danger. Does he agree that that is obviously ludicrous? These days we would not ask any service personnel to what they did because of the danger posed. It was clearly a dangerous situation and should be recognised as such.
Sir John Hayes
I could not agree with the hon. Lady more, and I thank her for what she said. I will deal with and, indeed, reinforce the point she makes when I come to discuss the consideration of the matter so far and what more now needs to be done. She is quite right, as I shall explain.
For me, this journey began, as the hon. Lady suggested, long ago: I went to see the Labour Defence Minister at the time—so we are stretching back in time, Madam Deputy Speaker—the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), who gave the case a good and fair hearing when I took veterans to see him. I know that he was then, and I imagine he continues to be, very sympathetic to the case. Time and again we have been blocked by a combination of the top brass—I do not know whether the Minister regards himself as top brass—and the military establishment in the Ministry of Defence. Politicians from all parties in this House have typically heard the sense that has been offered again today by the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) and, to a lesser extent, by me in making this argument.
Over the years since then, I have heard heartbreaking stories of lives forever altered by radiation sickness. I have witnessed the tireless efforts of those involved in obtaining formal recognition for the servicemen who selflessly endured the unknown risks of atomic testing. Indeed, I have come to know many such veterans well. There is, of course, a rate of attrition as these people become older and deal with some of the illnesses that I have described, but there are remaining veterans. I have come to know well one of my constituents, Douglas Hern, who was one such person drafted into the south Pacific nuclear testing programme. Every meeting I have attended and every story I have heard reminds me of our moral duty to deliver a suitable emblem of the debt that we owe not only to the more than 1,000 nuclear test veterans who are still with us but to their families. I see no reason—perhaps the Minister will tell me why it is not a good idea—why families should not collect medals on behalf of those they have loved and lost.
In 2019, following a meeting that I led with the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association, the then Secretary of State for Defence announced that he would ask the honours committee to re-examine whether a medal should be awarded to nuclear test veterans. He rightly stated:
“We must never forget their courage and bravery in contributing to keeping their country safe during the Cold War.”
Perhaps unsurprisingly, given that it met only half a dozen times in the two years after he missioned it to look at this matter, and after no testimony whatsoever from veterans or veterans’ organisations, the advisory military sub-committee refused to recommend the award of a medal model on the grounds that—the hon. Member for Glasgow North West made reference to this—such service
“did not meet the level of risk and rigour”
required. Not enough risk? These men flew fighter planes through mushroom clouds and felt the heat of nuclear explosions on their bare skin. Knowing what we know now of the life-altering effects of radiation exposure, to state that serving in that environment did not amount to risk and rigour sufficient to deserve a medal is—I put it as mildly as I can—bewildering, baffling, astonishing. There is clear evidence of a legacy of heartache and of pain—literally and metaphorically—that spans generations. There is a legacy of cancers that cut great men down to size before their time, wives who suffered the unimaginable pain of infant mortality, and a generation of children born with life-altering conditions.
The United Kingdom has a long tradition of marking the service of our personnel through the award of medals for particular operations. My father, a second world war veteran, wore them proudly. I do not have them, but I have no doubt that the Minister wears his proudly. Campaign medals have rightly been granted for novel and non-combat operations in the past. The Minister will know of the Ebola Medal for Service in West Africa and the medals awarded to remote drone operators in 2017. There are clearly established precedents for the awarding of service medals for non-combat operations. In 2012, David Cameron, the then Prime Minister, personally intervened to secure a medal for Arctic convoy veterans, so there is a specific precedent for the award of a medal long after the event it marks.
The time for excuses has long passed. Now is the time for decisive action. For the veterans and the mothers and fathers, children and grandchildren affected, I urge the Government to act before it is too late. It is time to step up for those who stepped forward when their country needed them. It is time our generation recognised what those generations before did to make us safe. In the twilight of their storied lives, it should be our privilege to present our nuclear test veterans with an emblem of our gratitude for what was endured in the name of Queen and country. Not to honour these good and true people who served their nation would disappoint them, but it would dishonour all of us.
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Johnny Mercer)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) for his speech. He has campaigned for a number of years on this and has worked tirelessly to see those who served their country get recognition for their service. I pay tribute to him for his huge efforts.
Ensuring that victims get the recognition they deserve is fundamental to supporting veterans in this country, as is recognised in the strategy for our veterans, and I am determined that we recognise our veterans in the correct way. The Government have committed to veterans in a way that none of our predecessors have, with more money now being spent on the veterans community than ever before. Establishing the Office for Veterans’ Affairs was a systemic change and an indication of the Government’s commitment to her veterans. Never before in previous Governments under previous Ministers has there been an Office for Veterans’ Affairs to take responsibility for these issues and to champion the needs of veterans across government.
I hope today to assure my hon. Friends that the contributions of those who participated in the nuclear testing programme are not unrecognised, and that the Government continue to acknowledge and thank all service personnel who participated. Importantly, as my right hon. Friend mentioned, they contributed to keeping our nation secure during the cold war and since by ensuring that the UK was equipped with an appropriate nuclear capability. We will never forget their service, and we continue to recognise all that they did for their country.
As hon. Members will be aware, the advisory military sub-committee, which has been mentioned, was established to reconsider historic medallic recognition cases. As has been mentioned, last year the committee considered this case and concluded that participation in it did not meet the committee’s criteria. It is important to get across to the House that this is an independent process. It operates to a strict criteria and is outwith ministerial control, and rightly so. It was not a decision that some campaign groups, veterans and their families hoped for. I understand their disappointment—of course I do.
Carol Monaghan
In 2012, David Cameron agreed to award medals—I cannot remember for which campaign; it may have been the Ebola campaign—so Prime Ministers can step in to let their feelings be known and to put pressure on the appropriate people to ensure that medals are awarded. There is a role for Ministers and for Government in this. This would be a very simple way to recognise the specific and dangerous situation that these veterans were put in.
Johnny Mercer
I thank the hon. Member. She is not correct; there is no formal role for Ministers to play in this decision-making process. There never has been for medals. It is important that the AMSC is able to determine for itself which medal claims should be reviewed. The terms of the sub-committee are clearly laid out, and any new submissions that might have been provided have been passed to the sub-committee. The decision on whether the case will be reviewed will be shared with campaigners by the AMSC in due course. This is not the end of the line. Those reasons will be shared.
As I have said, the medallic system is outside the control of Ministers, and it always has been. It is rightly in that position, protecting the integrity of the medals system—this is important—and of those who have received honours in this country. However, I am determined to continue to do all I can to support this cohort of veterans. It is fundamental to me that there is no tiered approach to veterans in this country, that those who have served for any period, in any circumstance, are recognised and supported as veterans. Therefore, although there are no dedicated compensation arrangements for UK nuclear test veterans, all claims have been and continue to be considered under the war pension scheme.
Any veteran who believes they have suffered ill health due to service has the right to apply for no-fault compensation under this scheme, and I encourage them to do so. War pensions are payable in respect of illness or injury as a result of service in the armed forces before 6 April 2005, with the benefit of reasonable doubt always given to the claimant. Decisions are medically certified and follow consideration of available service and medical evidence, and carry full rights of appeal to an independent tribunal.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister for his response. The right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings referred to the risk. I am not sure whether everybody here watches “Call the Midwife”, but on Sunday night past they had an article in the paper and it was about this very thing. I know that it was a drama, but it illustrated the effect on not only the soldiers, airmen and navy personnel, but the families. When it comes down to risk, is there not, as the right hon. Gentleman said, an obligation to deliver?
Johnny Mercer
The hon. Gentleman gets to the nub of the problem. I have seen some of the drama on Sunday night in “Call the Midwife”, and it is clearly a good and emotive production. The difficulty the Government have is that the evidential basis linking conditions such as that to these tests is with the scientific community and in its opinion it is not of the standard whereby we can draw clear evidential proof. That is the problem we have. That is not a decision for a Minister—that is not a decision for me. I have my own views on medals, and I have worked hard to support this cohort in other ways. That is the nub of the problem, and it is a difficult one, because I know it is frustrating for the families and for campaigners. That is the situation we are in, and work continues to identify the links between illnesses that people think they received from nuclear tests and the actual radiation exposure itself.
Sir John Hayes
The Minister is being extremely generous in giving way, so I am grateful to him. I understand the argument about compensation, which is why of course the then Chancellor George Osborne made an ex gratia payment—I did emphasise that—but the medal is a bang to rights case. The fact that this committee suggested an absence of risk and rigour is extraordinary. There can be no greater risk than going into a radiation cloud. Surely the Minister, with his expertise, recognises that. Can he commit tonight to refer this back to that committee and at least ask it to take evidence from the veterans and their representatives, which it failed to do last time?
Johnny Mercer
There is an appeal going into this process, and I will write to the AMSC and ask it to make sure that it has seen veterans and their groups when making the decision in that appeal process.
In addition to maintaining access to compensation for all veterans who have suffered ill health due to service, I am committed to ensuring the provision of excellent wraparound care. That includes access to free confidential advice and support on a wide range of issues through the Veterans Welfare Service; maintaining access to bespoke services such as the veterans trauma network in England; and levelling up veterans’ mental health provision through the launch of Op Courage.
I also recognise that veterans are civilians and most access support through regular NHS services wherever they live in the UK. I am rolling out a veteran-awareness accreditation programme for GP surgeries and hospital trusts, with over 800 GP surgeries and nearly 60 trusts signed up. Let me be clear: there should be no reason in this country today why any GP surgery or NHS trust is not veteran-aware accredited. This is a duty we have to the nation; it is something we all have a responsibility in. I will be relentlessly campaigning for every NHS trust and GP surgery to become veteran-aware.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings for his tireless efforts. Anybody who tirelessly campaigns for veterans is clearly an ally of mine. We are committed as a Government, more than any Government before us, to getting the veterans’ case right, and that includes those who participated in the nuclear test programme. Those veterans made a huge contribution to ensuring the security of each and every one of us by ensuring that we had a capable and resilient nuclear deterrent during the height of the cold war. I reiterate my absolute support for those service people and I pay tribute to their service.
This idea that veterans who served in the nuclear tests are not worthy is completely wrong. There is no hierarchy of veterans in this country. The challenge in this particular case is the causal link between exposure to radiation and the illnesses that then present in individuals—and their families, because this goes on for some time. I am committed to making sure that we achieve fairness. I will make sure that the views of veterans’ groups and their representatives are portrayed to the AMSC. But I also have a duty to maintain the rigour of the system. Awards and medals always have been inherently difficult and at times divisive, but I am sure we will get there in the end—we will arrive at the right answer—and I urge my right hon. Friend to keep going with his campaign.
Question put and agreed to.
Members Eligible for a Proxy Vote
Member eligible for proxy vote | Nominated proxy |
|---|---|
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kemi Badenoch (Saffron Walden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Margaret Beckett (Derby South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Suella Braverman (Fareham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
James Brokenshire (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudon) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Sir Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Con) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP) | Sammy Wilson |
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Alistair Carmichael (rt. hon.) (Orkney and Shetland) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Sir Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jon Cruddas (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
James Daly (Bury North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mims Davies (Mid Sussex) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con) | Ben Everitt |
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP) | Sammy Wilson |
Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Ms Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP) | Ben Lake |
Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind) | Stuart Andrew |
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind) | Stuart Andrew |
Colleen Fletcher (Coventry North East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP) | Sammy Wilson |
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Michael Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Kate Griffiths (Burton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Grundy (Leigh) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP) | Ben Lake |
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Rebecca Harris (Castle Point) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Trudy Harrison (Copeland) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
James Heappey (Wells) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
John Howell (Henley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mr Alister Jack (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Boris Johnson (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gillian Keegan (Chichester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con) | Mr William Wragg |
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP) | Sammy Wilson |
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) | Owen Thompson |
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Wendy Morton (Aldridge- Brownhills) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con) | Antony Higginbotham |
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP) | Sammy Wilson |
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC) | Ben Lake |
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con) | Mark Harper |
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Grant Shapps (Welwyn Hatfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Amanda Solloway (Derby North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Rishi Sunak (Richmond (Yorks)) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con) | Mr William Wragg |
Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Warburton (Somerset and Frome) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Whittingdale (Malden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC) | Ben Lake |
Gavin Williamson (Montgomeryshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Draft Civil Proceedings Fees (Amendment) Order 2021
(3 years, 7 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin I would like to remind Members to observe social distancing and only to sit in places that are clearly defined and marked as available. Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Committee rooms except, of course, when a Member is speaking. Hansard colleagues would be most grateful if Members sent their speaking notes to hansardnotes @parliament.uk.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Philp)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Civil Proceedings Fees (Amendment) Order 2021.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley, for the first time, I believe, and I am sure not for the last time
The purpose of the statutory instrument is very straightforward, namely to support the ongoing work of the Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunal Service to make sure that courts and tribunals operate efficiently and cost-effectively. For that reason, for many years fees have been charged for some services delivered by the courts, particularly in the civil jurisdiction. Those make a contribution to running the wider system including, of course, the criminal courts.
The SI affects civil money and possession claims, which are regulated by the Civil Proceedings Fees Order 2008. The fees were last changed about six years ago. At the moment, a discount is applied if the claim is made online. We propose to align those fees upwards, so that the same fee is paid whether the claim is filed on paper or online, so that there is no longer any difference. The magnitude of the increase is relatively modest; for most fees it is an increase of £10 per application. The largest increase is £45—if someone is making a claim between £5,000 and £10,000, the fee goes from £410 to £455. For the majority of fees, however, the increase is just £10.
We estimate that the fee increases will raise between £9 million and £25 million, every penny of which will be reinvested in the courts system on matters such as sitting days and court maintenance. Indeed, the budget dispensed by the Ministry of Justice also covers legal aid. All of the money raised will go towards supporting our court system as it recovers from coronavirus.
It is worth mentioning that, in total, we raise £724 million a year in fees, but the cost of running HMCTS is about £2 billion, so we are only actually getting about one third of the cost of running the Courts Service back in fees. That income is important, however, because it helps the entire system to run more effectively and minimises the burden on the Exchequer.
That is a summary of the proposals before us. It is a modest but sensible change to make sure that we are doing everything we can to ensure that our justice system is fully funded. I commend the Order to the Committee.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley.
As set out by the Minister, the purpose of the SI is a relatively simple one. When making civil money or possession claims, claimants have two choices—to make their claim online, or to submit a paper-based claim. To incentivise more people to make online claims, the Government discounted the online fees that claimants had to pay. Over time, and as more people started to make their claims online, the Government achieved their policy objective. At that point, the MOJ had two options —to continue discounted fees for those who make claims online, or to align the fees for online claims and paper-based claims so that all claimants pay the same. The Government have chosen the former option; effectively they will remove the discount applied to online claimants, so all claimants will pay the same, irrespective of how they lodge their claim.
From personal experience of issuing claims on the possession claims and money claims online portals, I know that the systems are easy to use and work well. Such claims are now most likely the norm, while paper-based claims in triplicate are now very much the exception. On that point, we can broadly agree with the Government. However, it seems unfair that claimants who either do not have internet access or are uncomfortable using it should be forced to pay more for the same service as anyone else.
Labour accept the larger point about the importance of having a properly funded justice system, so that courts and tribunals have the resources to deliver much needed services. Labour cannot accept, however, a measure that represents little more than a drop in the ocean in terms of the additional investment that HMCTS desperately needs.
The Government’s impact assessments set out that the SI will save the Ministry between £12 million and £35 million a year from 2022-23 onwards. Although all savings are welcome, they must be taken in context. Due to the closure of many court counters and difficulty in getting through to court staff, many vulnerable court users or people who have difficulty accessing justice are still disadvantaged by not receiving advice on how to pursue or defend a cause of action. Although the Minister has said that the money is set to be reinvested in the courts system, how much of the savings will be reinvested in providing early advice to people who have made applications to the court?
A decade of cuts has left the justice system on the brink of complete collapse. The crisis before us cannot be overstated, nor can it be exaggerated. There is an urgent need for investment in our justice system. As the Minister well knows, the backlog in the criminal courts now stands at a record high of more than 57,000, and in the magistrates courts it is close to 400,000. Victims of serious crime, including rape, are being forced to wait up to four years for justice. Meanwhile, violent offenders are being allowed to avoid prison because of delays. That is simply unacceptable and a disaster entirely of the Government’s own making.
Ten years of Conservative cuts to the courts and sitting days have allowed the backlog to grow to a staggering 39,000 cases, even before the pandemic began. Although covid has put a strain on the system, its foundations have already been eroded by systematic underinvestment.
As the Public Accounts Committee highlighted just last month, justice is—
The Chair
Order. I encourage the hon. Gentleman to make his comments relevant to the Order. I know that you want to get on to some other stuff, but it must be relevant to the issue of fees. I know that you are skilled enough to do that.
Bambos Charalambous
Thank you, Mr Paisley.
The Opposition have no issue with the Government about the SI, and for that reason we will not divide on the matter.
Chris Philp
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for his support for the measure in hand. I can assure him that the money raised will be in addition to the £377 million extra being invested in the criminal justice system this year. Among other things, that money will support the downstream impact of the 20,000 extra police officers who, I am sure, all of us welcome very strongly.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Education
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con) [V]
North Devon is the first place in England to record no covid cases for a week this year, and our students are keen to return to campus. Will my hon. Friend detail what measures are in place to ensure that they can do so safely, as they will inevitably be travelling to an area with higher rates of infection?
Michelle Donelan
Universities continue to make significant investments in student and staff safety—including updated risk assessments, assessments of adequate ventilation and covid-secure measures such as mandatory social distancing, hand washing and face coverings—and testing is available to all students, who should currently be tested twice a week at their university test centre. From 17 May, we will move to home testing, with students first asked to take three PCR tests at their university test centre.
[Official Report, 15 April 2021, Vol. 692, c. 489.]
Letter of correction from the Minister for Universities, the hon. Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan).
An error has been identified in the response I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby).
The correct response should have been:
Michelle Donelan
Universities continue to make significant investments in student and staff safety—including updated risk assessments, assessments of adequate ventilation and covid-secure measures such as mandatory social distancing, hand washing and face coverings—and testing is available to all students, who should currently be tested twice a week at their university test centre. From May, we will move to home testing, with students first asked to take three LFD tests at their university test centre.
Advanced Research and Invention Agency Bill (Third sitting)
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. Before we begin, I have a few preliminary announcements. Members will understand the need to respect social distancing guidance. In line with the Commission’s decisions, face coverings should be worn in Committee unless Members are speaking or medically exempt. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. Please switch electronic devices to silent; teas and coffees are not allowed during sittings.
We now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room and shows how the selected amendments have been grouped together for debate. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same or similar issues. Please note that decisions on amendments do not take place in the order in which they are debated but in the order that they appear on the amendment paper. The selection list shows the order of debates. Decisions on each amendment are taken when we come to the clause to which the amendment relates. A Member who has put their name to the leading amendment in a group is called first; other Members are then free to catch my eye to speak to all or any of the amendments within that group. A Member may speak more than once in a single debate.
At the end of the debate on a group of amendments, or new clauses and schedules, I shall again call the Member who moved the leading amendment or new clause. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate whether they wish to withdraw the amendment or new clause, or seek a decision. If any Member wishes to press to a vote any other amendment in a group, including grouped new clauses and schedules, they need to let me know. I shall use my discretion to decide whether to allow a separate stand part debate on individual clauses and schedules following the debate on the relevant amendments.
Clause 1
Establishment of ARIA
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 1, page 1, line 3, leave out
“Advanced Research and Invention Agency”
and insert
“Advanced Research and Engineering Projects Agency”.
This amendment would modify the name of the Advanced Research and Invention Agency to the Advanced Research and Engineering Projects Agency.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 3, in clause 1, page 1, line 5, leave out “ARIA” and insert “AREPA”.
This amendment would reflect a modification to the name of the Advanced Research and Invention Agency to the Advanced Research and Engineering Projects Agency.
Amendment 4, in clause 1, page 1, line 6, leave out “ARIA” and insert “AREPA”.
This amendment would reflect a modification to the name of the Advanced Research and Invention Agency to the Advanced Research and Engineering Projects Agency.
Amendment 26, in clause 15, page 5, line 35, leave out
“Advanced Research and Invention Agency”
and insert
“Advanced Research and Engineering Projects Agency”.
This amendment will modify the ARIA short title.
Amendment 1, title, line 1, leave out
“Advanced Research and Invention Agency”
and insert
“Advanced Research and Engineering Projects Agency”.
This amendment would modify the long title of the Bill to reflect a change to the name of the Advanced Research and Invention Agency to the Advanced Research and Engineering Projects Agency.
Daniel Zeichner
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms McVey. I look forward to a fascinating discussion about a very important set of issues. Let me start by apologising on behalf of the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central, who is delayed this morning but will be joining us in an hour or so. I have the pleasure of opening this morning’s sitting. I thank those who set up last week’s evidence sessions. I have sat on a number of Bill Committees in my short time in Parliament, and I have to say that I think it was the most informative evidence session that I have come across. I hope we all learned something from it—I certainly did.
The evidence session led directly to the first set of amendments. David Cleevely suggested this idea, in fact, and I remind the Committee of what he said in his observations:
“All the examples given of contributions that make a difference have all been, it strikes me, about engineering, so I suggest that we rename this the ‘Advanced Research and Engineering Agency’. To be honest, ‘invention’ strikes me a bit like something in the 1950s, with somebody emerging from a shed with a gadget that has just blown their hair off”—
a bit like my hair this morning. He continued:
“Peter Highnam pointed out ‘projects’, so we might actually consider it to be the ‘Advanced Research and Engineering Projects Agency’.”––[Official Report, Advanced Research and Invention Agency Public Bill Committee, 14 April 2021; c. 74, Q76.]
That is a really important point. I suspect that much of the discussion today and in successive sittings will really be about the finer points of setting up an organisation, and will be relatively dry. Amendment 2 goes to the heart of what the agency is actually about and its whole purpose.
I very much hope that we will get wide engagement from all members of the Committee. I know that Government Whips are sometimes inclined to suggest that Government Members should hold their fire, but we have lots of expertise here today, and I think we are all trying to get the best outcome, so I hope people will feel that they can contribute.
One thing that struck me about the evidence session was just how many witnesses highlighted the need for greater clarity about the purpose of the agency. Professor Wilsdon put it very well when he said:
“I think that trying to bring more clarity, or at least a sense of how this issue will be addressed through the governance of this new thing, is really important.”
He warned:
“Otherwise, you or your successors, and we or our successors, will be back here in a few years’ time, asking ourselves why it did not work.”––[Official Report, Advanced Research and Invention Agency Public Bill Committee, 14 April 2021; c. 23, Q19.]
Commentary and observations from the outside world say the same thing. The Government may have a view, and I hope the Minister will take the opportunity to clarify it. Our concern is that the Bill lacks clarity.
I found the evidence session very helpful, particularly because I started with a bit of prejudice: I thought I would struggle with anything that had been promoted by Dominic Cummings. I am not a grudgey sort of person—I do not bear a grudge. Actually, I do bear more than 65 million grudges on behalf of every man, woman and child in the country who was outraged by his behaviour this time last year, without going into what happened before that. It was disappointing that he did not choose to make himself available for our evidence session, because this is clearly a project associated with and driven by him. Perhaps that was for the best, though, because it makes it less about him and more about the future of research and development in our country.
The proposed name change came out of the evidence that he gave to the Select Committee on Science and Technology, which I watched. As one often does late in the evening, I was scrolling through the TV channels and suddenly I found hon. Members interviewing Dominic Cummings on the TV. Usually, I would move on to the football, but there was something extraordinarily engaging about that hour-long session. It seemed meandering and self-indulgent, and it revealed his loathing and hatred for everything in the world, particularly bureaucracy: whether it be Brussels bureaucracy, the blob or the way in which research and development work in this country, everything is designed to stop the process of invention emerging.
We all want it to be easier to do things. None of us wants bureaucracy, but most of us understand why it is there—there is a reason for it. Of course, we have to fight against it, but particularly in the last week or two it has become strikingly obvious why we need it: to make sure we do not leave ourselves open to cronyism and the abuse of public money. Over the years, all politicians have felt just how frustrating democracy can sometimes be. Would it not be so much better if just a few of us—a few blokes, probably—could just get together with Dominic and run the country? Would that not be so much better? We have seen examples of that through history and in other places. Without going back to cliches, there is a reason why we stick with democracy: it is better than all the other difficult systems.
I was struck by Mr Cummings’s constant invocation of the way things have been discovered in the past. He has talked frequently of the Laboratory of Molecular Biology in Cambridge, which is very dear to me. For those who come to Cambridge on the train from London, although there are many striking buildings outside Cambridge, it is particularly iconic building. It is not just a building, though; hugely important work goes on in it. Scientists from across the world, particularly Europe, are doing fantastic work. They have won a disproportionate number of Nobel prizes over the years.
Mr Cummings’s view was to hark back to the starting point, when there were some fantastic breakthroughs in a shed on the site of the old Addenbrooke’s Hospital. He almost seemed to think that they needed to be in the shed to get the breakthroughs. He was harking back to a very different world—perhaps the world that he wants us to be, back in the 1950s. That is not the world we are in now. That is the crunch with the name change.
What is in a name? In this case, a great deal. The word “invention” in the current title is useful to create a cheery acronym—I will come back to that—but actually it points to completely the wrong approach. As David said, it is bit like something from the 1950s, when someone emerges from a shed with a gadget that has blown their hair off. It is a sepia-tinged view of innovation: “The great breakthroughs were achieved against the odds, largely by blokes in sheds.” Well, perhaps they were, but that was then and this is now, and all the other witnesses painted a very different picture of how innovation happens.
Tabitha Goldstaub was particularly clear. She told us:
“I worry also about the lone genius model. We are well beyond individual success being seen like that. This is all about community. One of the things I have heard time and again is that people do not want to be funded as individuals but as groups of people. It is a community that would come together around a programme manager that is really important.”––[Official Report, Advanced Research and Invention Agency Public Bill Committee, 14 April 2021; c. 54, Q52.]
That was the real force of the evidence from those who know best—those who have been doing this in America. The session with the people from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency was particularly powerful. DARPA does not have invention in its title and there is a good reason for that: it is not what it does.
Dr Highnam was particularly clear:
“DARPA: defence and national security. Clear mission; clear scope in which to work. Of the ARPA-like entities around that I am aware of, the only one that very closely follows the DARPA model would be the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity in the US intelligence community. When you change what I would regard as the key elements—ephemeral or temporary people, project based, and no fixed assets—that have made DARPA nimble and forward leaning for 63 years now, you get something else.”––[Official Report, Advanced Research and Invention Agency Public Bill Committee, 14 April 2021; c. 43, Q37.]
Note that he said “project based”—it is about projects, which is why that is in our amendment. It is a much more accurate description of what the agency should be about.
Dr Highnam said more, and this is probably more significant:
“The p in DARPA stands for ‘projects’, which is critical for a place like DARPA. We are not doing technology area x or y just because, and we do not do it for the long term. We have projects that are well defined at the beginning. A case has to be made. They are monitored, they have metrics and all manner of independent evaluation associated with them before we go out to find the best teams we can to participate and to be funded to work on that research. Then that project ends.”––[Official Report, Advanced Research and Invention Agency Public Bill Committee, 14 April 2021; c. 40, Q34.]
He could not have been clearer—that is what makes it work.
If we contrast that clarity with the Bill, we see that the evidence sessions clearly revealed the muddle in Government thinking, as a succession of witnesses tried to get their heads around what this agency is for. It is certainly not clear in the Bill. As it stands, without amendment 2 the muddle over what the agency does remains unresolved, which inevitably means a muddle over money and resources, because while managing projects does not necessarily require a big spend, invention is quite another matter. The name change links to that vexed question of whether it is new money.
When Dame Ottoline Leyser of UK Research and Innovation—she is a constituent of mine—was asked what she would do with an extra £800 million if she had it to spend, her reply was skilful in the extreme. It was tactful, but it was a laugh-out-loud moment, because it was quite clear that this is not what she would choose to spend it on. Professor McDonald made a similar point, as did a succession of other witnesses. All of them were absolutely clear that it has to be new.
We in the Opposition certainly want new. Our aspiration is to go beyond 2.4%—we want 3%. We are happy to support new money, but I suspect that if it were a Labour proposal, the first question would be, “Where is the money coming from?” Perhaps the Minister can tell us that, because I do not think we have any clues. We welcome it, none the less.
In reality, despite the creative attempts at amendments from us and from the Scottish National party, we know that future money cannot be guaranteed. That is why the purpose of the agency is so important and why the “Projects” element matters so much.
The amendment also seeks to add “Engineering”, partly as that was suggested by David Cleevely in his witness statement. As he rightly pointed out, many of the examples are engineering examples. I have to say “partly” because the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central, is a chartered engineer. Perhaps that is not actually so significant. If we took out “Engineering”, our amendment would result in the name being ARPA—the Advanced Research and Projects Agency—which is a straight copy. We are seeking to emulate largely what ARPA has achieved, which I am not sure is such a bad thing.
I have to say that on Second Reading I had a slightly tetchy exchange with the Secretary of State about whether the proposed agency was modelled or based on whatever. It is clearly learning from experiences. We have some other not dissimilar examples: we have the small business research initiative, which is the SBRI. I have spent many years trying to promote and support it, and it is based on the American model, the SBIR—small business innovation research—so we have some examples of borrowing from the Americans and switching the letters round. Given the number of different American ARPAs, we could end up with ARPA UK, or it could be ARPA GB or ARPA England—it depends how the world goes in the years ahead—but, frankly, we are not precious about it. However, the shift from “Projects” to “Invention” really does matter, so if the Government chose to make that change, or whether it was an accident, I would like the Minister to explain why and what the Government think is significant about the word “Invention” in the title of the agency.
Dr Highnam of DARPA said that if one does not do it in the way that he described, one gets something else. It is therefore only reasonable to ask the Minister what it is that she wants to do differently. What is it that she wants the agency to be? If the agency is going to cost an initial £800 million, what makes her confident that it will work? We heard from a number of witnesses, including Felicity Burch, who talked about previous efforts to move our research system closer to the “edge of the edge”, as it has been described. I am thinking of the Technology Strategy Board and the industrial strategy challenge fund. Felicity Burch said in her evidence that setting the agency up on a statutory basis makes a difference, and I think it does, but only if it is done in the right way.
Let me conclude by returning just briefly to the operatic theme that I have encouraged throughout the debate so far. I have been through Puccini and Purcell, but to finish where I began with Dominic Cummings, could we annoy him a little bit more by suggesting that the song might be the “Ode to Joy”? It is not quite an aria, more a collective chorale, but I think one of the projects we could turn to is to create more joy. In general, let us have clarity by making the purpose of the agency clear in its title. Let us recognise that it really is about projects, and do so by adopting the series of amendments under consideration. That would give the new agency a genuinely clear purpose, with the challenge framed by the Government. In our view, that has a much better chance of success, and as such is worth supporting with enthusiasm.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Amanda Solloway)
What a pleasure it is to be under your chairmanship, Ms McVey, and to listen to the hon. Member for Cambridge. He talked about a wide range of issues, most which I am sure will be addressed in further debate. In this instance, I will concentrate on amendment 2 and those grouped with it.
The creation of ARIA represents an exciting opportunity to add to our already excellent research and development funding landscape. That came out very strongly on Second Reading, and I hope that today’s debate and last week’s evidence sessions demonstrate the importance of the legislation. I would like to place on record my thanks to the Opposition parties for the constructive way in which they have approached the Bill thus far, and I look forward to discussing the amendments that they have tabled.
Amendment 2 and associated amendments would change the name of the agency to the advanced research and engineering projects agency, or AREPA. I must say that when the hon. Gentleman raised this option last Wednesday, I did not realise that it was a serious suggestion. As I am sure he can imagine, a certain amount of thought and discussion has gone into choosing the name of the agency, and I do prefer the musical reference to naming the agency after a flatbread.
On a serious note, I recognise how central engineering successes have been to the historic breakthroughs of ARPA and DARPA in the United States. I found the evidence of Sir Jim McDonald of the Royal Academy of Engineering and others hugely interesting. I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern that those contributions should not be overlooked. I very much hope that ARIA builds on the history of engineering excellence that we have right across the UK, and supports the next generation of transformational breakthroughs. The powers of the body are key. I assure the Committee that just as UK Research and Innovation is able to provide funding for engineering research through the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, ARIA’s powers extend to conducting engineering projects in exactly the same way as projects in any other area of science. That important discipline has not been forgotten. Our ambitions can be achieved without renaming ARIA, and I cannot accept the amendment.
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful to the Minister. I admit that there is a sense of gentle joshing in the name change. It is not the engineering issue that is important to us, but the invention issue. I listened closely to for an explanation from the Minister of why “invention” has been chosen, but did not hear one; I would be grateful if she intervened to explain. I outlined clearly why the projects element is so important. We heard a consistent view from witnesses throughout the evidence sessions, so I see no reason why the amendment should not be seriously considered.
Looking at the numbers around me, I do not expect to secure an overwhelming victory in a vote, but this amendment will go on for further discussion elsewhere. I hope that it will be thought about carefully, because it simply cannot be denied that, both in the evidence sessions and outside this place, there is concern about clarity of purpose. We all want the agency to succeed, and the amendment is a constructive suggestion. Personally, I would go for “ARPA”, to make it absolutely clear that we are trying to do what the Americans have achieved in the past. Neither the Minister nor anyone else has given me a sense of clarity about what are actually trying to achieve—to say, “That is what we need to achieve, and that is what is missing.” That is why I wish to divide the Committee on the amendment.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
As the remaining amendments to clause 1 are consequential to amendment 2, to which the Committee has just disagreed, I will not call amendments 3 or 4, as it would be inconsistent with the decision that the Committee has just reached.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Amanda Solloway
The establishment of the Advanced Research and Invention Agency as a statutory corporation means that the body has its own legal personality that is distinct from the that of the Crown or its individual members, as set out in paragraph 1 of schedule 1. That allows ARIA to enter into legal relations such as contracts, and to hold property in its own right.
A statutory corporation also allows the specific terms of the relationship between Government and ARIA to be set out in law—the composition of the board and the appointments process, for example. In setting that out, we have sought to balance the freedom required for ARIA to deliver transformational scientific and technological advances, but with appropriate ministerial oversight. I hope that hon. Members agree that that is the right vehicle for the creation of the agency.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1
The Advanced Research and Invention Agency
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 5, in schedule 1, page 6, line 10 at end insert—
“Memorandum of understanding
2 (1) ARIA and UK Research and Innovation must prepare a memorandum of understanding.
(2) The memorandum must set out how ARIA and UK Research and Innovation intend to co-operate with each other and avoid overlap between the exercise by ARIA of its functions and the exercise by UK Research and Invention of its functions.
(3) The memorandum shall be reviewed on an annual basis and revised as necessary by agreement between ARIA and UK Research & Innovation.”
This amendment would require ARIA and UKRI to prepare a memorandum of understanding setting out how they will collaborate and avoid overlap.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 6, in schedule 1, page 6, line 2, at end insert—
‘(c) the Chief Executive Officer of UK Research and Innovation; and’.
This amendment would make the CEO of UKRI a non-executive member of ARIA in order to achieve greater collaboration and communication between the two bodies.
Dawn Butler
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I do not think anyone will vote against the amendment, because all it seeks to do is ensure that there is a memorandum of understanding between ARIA and UK Research and Innovation about how they will work together. The two organisations will be working on the same themes, though doing things slightly differently, and they need to communicate. I am happy to give way to anyone who thinks it is not a good idea that UKRI and ARIA communicate. The amendment is practical and sensible and seeks only to clarify how they would work together.
Our evidence session was informative. Dame Ottoline Leyser from UKRI said:
“The people employed at ARIA will absolutely need to understand deeply what UKRI is doing and what the opportunities are across that research base in order to deliver their vision. I would expect a very close working relationship with ARIA to allow that to happen.”––[Official Report, Advanced Research and Invention Agency Public Bill Committee, 14 April 2021; c. 6, Q3.]
When she said that, I thought that the relationship must have been written in the legislation and I had missed something, because she said it as though it was going to happen. I went back to the Bill to have a look, but nothing in it says that UKRI and ARIA have to work together or at least know what each other is doing. I thought that quite strange. When I asked her how she expected that to happen, she said “naturally”. We in Parliament make laws and legislation; we do not leave things to happen naturally if we can we put them on the statute book. The amendment seeks only to have a memorandum of understanding between the already established UKRI and the newly established ARIA.
If the Committee votes against the amendment, people outside will not understand. They will ask, “Why don’t you want a memorandum of understanding?” Everything cannot be done just on trust. We have trust and transparency, but right now ARIA has neither, and it will not be subject to freedom of information rules. It is the wrong approach to say to people outside, “We are going to give £800 million to an organisation that will have no oversight, no FOI and no link to UKRI.” How would that be sensible, especially when—I say this gently—the Government are caught up in sleaze at the moment? That would not help at all. People will say, “You want £800 million to go to whom and to do what?”
Ultimately, we know that men of a certain age get these opportunities, and these men tend to fail upwards. Without the amendment, we are saying that we will allow people to fail upwards and we will not know what they are doing because failure will be part of what ARIA is. We accept that failure can be a part of ARIA, but there needs to be some oversight and connection to the already established UKRI.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for her service on the Science and Technology Committee with me, where we have been discussing this issue and the covid crisis over the last year. She made a point about men of a certain age. Last year, it was two women of a certain age—Dido Harding and Kate Bingham—who helped to respond to coronavirus. At the time, the Opposition made various allegations of cronyism, particularly about Kate Bingham, which ought to be withdrawn now that we have seen the success of what can happen when we take away some of the administrative burdens, focus clear-mindedly on a key goal and get it delivered. Making these allegations of sexism when we have had two women leading our response to coronavirus is not appropriate.
Dawn Butler
I thank the hon. Member for his service on the Science and Technology Committee, where we often agree and very often disagree. Of course we praise what goes well, but let us not forget that £14 million was spent on a test and trace system that was scrapped, or that Northern Ireland spent £1 million on a test and trace system that works perfectly well. Let us not forget those facts. Now, we are talking about £800 million.
Professor Pierre Azoulay said,
“It is important not to put those two agencies in competition; they both have a role to play.”—[Official Report, Advanced Research and Invention Agency Bill (Second sitting), 14 April 2021; c. 46]
Both agencies have a role to play; let them work together. Let us work on the premise that it will be a success.
Amanda Solloway
As a female Science Minister, I fully understand the sentiment behind the proposed amendment. I agree that it is important that ARIA and UKRI co-operate for ARIA to be a coherent addition to the UK R&D funding landscape.
I thought that Professor Dame Ottoline Leyser, the CEO of UKRI, really spoke eloquently on this point last week when she said:
“The kinds of relationship that one wants to have with key players across the system are not things for which you necessarily legislate. They are about maintaining open lines of communication and building high-quality personal relationships with different actors in the system.” [Official Report Advanced Research and Invention Agency Bill (First sitting), 14 April 2021, c. 15.]
I agree. It is important that we do not over-engineer ARIA’s governance arrangements and obligations in the Bill such that we risk binding the body and creating a bureaucratic process. I am concerned that the need for ARIA and UKRI to agree and annually review an MOU creates just such an administrative burden.
I also agree with Professor Dame Ottoline Leyser when she says that this happens organically. After all, it will be in ARIA’s interests to maintain a dialogue with UKRI to understand the work opportunities and key research opportunities in the UK R&D landscape. The framework document which will be agreed between BEIS and ARIA will set out the broad principles according to which ARIA must interact with other public R&D funders, which will, of course, include UKRI. For this reason I cannot accept the amendment, and I hope that the hon. Member for Brent Central will withdraw it.
Daniel Zeichner
I want to question the Minister on the difference between an MOU and the document that she has just referred to. It seems to me that we are not far apart on that. Could we not have an MOU?
Amanda Solloway
The framework document will be drawn up by the leadership of ARIA, and it is really important that that is how it will be devised. It will not be a Government-led document; it will be drawn up by the leadership and with ARIA.
Dawn Butler
I think the Minister has just described an MOU. A framework document that is agreed by UKRI and ARIA, not by the Government, is an MOU, I believe.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
In earlier comments, the hon. Lady referred to the evidence obtained offline. When she asked, “How would this occur?” Professor Dame Ottoline Leyser replied, “Naturally.” The Lady’s response is to ask, “Why would we rely on that, if we can put something on the statute?” I suggest that it should be the other way around. In this country, we legislate only where we have to, not where we can.
Dawn Butler
The Government are creating a new agency and spending £800 million. They are saying that this new agency should not be subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000. They are saying that it will fail, a lot, and we need to accept that failure happens in science. That is fine—I used to be a computer programmer, and I know that sometimes you try things and they do not work—but this is very new. We should not put it in a silo by itself, with no proper link to UKRI. I do not believe the hon. Member believes that there will be no link, because the Minister has just described this document as a memorandum of understanding by another name. I do not think there are actually any disagreements about having the memorandum of understanding.
Daniel Zeichner
I have learned something this morning. I too was a computer programmer. I hope my hon. Friend was a better programmer than I was—I worry about the code that I left for others.
On whether it is better to have it in the legislation, which is the point raised by the hon. Member for Broadland, does it strike my hon. Friend as odd, particularly at a time when the Government are under such scrutiny for relaxed arrangements involving texts, WhatsApp and all the rest of it? Is that not exactly the reason it should be put in legislation—so that it is clear for everybody?
Dawn Butler
My hon. Friend makes a very valid and powerful point. There are ongoing investigations—Greensill, PestFix and VIP lanes. Let us avoid such accusations by agreeing a memorandum of understanding between ARIA and UKRI. Let people not question the role of ARIA: we are expecting the public to accept failure as an essential part of ARIA, and they are going to accept failure. Let the public understand that there will be some link to UKRI, which is an established agency.
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)
I wish to refer to some of the things that were said during the evidence sessions. In the very helpful session with Professor Dame Ottoline Leyser, she talked about the “edge of the edge”, to which we have already referred, but she also said directly after that that leaving them the freedom of decision making may attract the special people we need in that role. She was talking about the chief exec and the role of the people who will be looking after ARIA. That is very important. What we do not need to do is create restrictions around this. This is £800 million that is separate from UKRI. Professor Leyser was very happy about that; in fact, she wanted it to be quite separate, so that it was free and allowed to develop ideas and inventions.
The Opposition referred to a muddle when they talked about clarification, but I think what they mean is they want to meddle. They want to put restrictions in place—any kind of restriction that would show that we are in charge. Well, we are not. We are not great inventors. The people who will be in ARIA will be great inventors, and they will create good things.
The hon. Lady mentioned that she was happy to accept failure, but she also beat us around the face and neck about the £14 million that was spent on test and trace, which failed. Come on—we have to allow them to fail.
Dawn Butler
I was almost with the hon. Lady up until the £14 million. At the end of the day, Northern Ireland spent £1 million on a test and trace system that worked. I could have programmed a test and trace system—it might have taken me a few years, but I could have done it—for a lot less. It is unacceptable to spend £14 million on a test and trace system that failed and had to be scrapped. It is shocking for the hon. Lady to stand up and even consider that to be a defence.
A memorandum of understanding does not restrict anybody. A memorandum of understanding is exactly that: a memorandum of understanding. The hon. Lady talked about the CEO of UKRI. Amendment 6 talks about making
“the CEO of UKRI a non-executive member of ARIA in order to achieve greater collaboration and communication between the two bodies.”
What is wrong with having greater collaboration between UKRI and ARIA? I do not understand. Nobody has yet stood up to tell me why there is a problem with having collaboration between UKRI and ARIA. None of the Members that have spoken has given a reason why there should not be collaboration between the two. ARIA can still go off and do its thing, and fail away, but it needs to know what UKRI is doing. What is the problem?
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 28, in schedule 1, page 6, line 22, at end insert—
“(4) The Secretary of State must ensure that—
(a) at least 50% of the other members appointed under (3)(c) are women; and
(b) where the number of members under (a) would be an odd number, the calculation of 50% of other members should be made as if the board had one fewer non-executive member.”
This amendment is intended to ensure that the Secretary of State appoints a significant percentage of women as other non-executive members.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 9, in schedule 1, page 6, line 24, at end insert—
“(5) The Secretary of State must, in appointing the members of ARIA, have regard to the diversity of the members including the representation of those with protected characteristics.
(6) In this section, ‘protected characteristics’ has the meaning given by Part 2, Chapter 1 of the Equalities Act 2010.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to have regard to the diversity of ARIA’s board when using their powers of appointment.
Kirsty Blackman
It is a pleasure to be able to take part in this Bill Committee. Unfortunately, I had to come to London to do so, but it is nice to see some of the faces that I have not seen for a while, other than on little screens. I will start with a bit of fluff: I thank the Clerks for their huge amount of hard work in assisting us with the amendments that we tabled to the Bill. It was really helpful. I am sure they provided the same level of help to everybody else, but we very much appreciate it.
I will speak to amendment 28 and the Opposition’s amendment 9. Our amendment 28 relates to the number of women to be appointed to the board in non-executive positions. There is some lack of flexibility around the positions because two are taken by named individuals. There are also positions that are not appointed by the Secretary of State because they are executive positions. In relation to the non-executive members, it is incredibly important that a significant percentage of women is included among them.
The hon. Member for Broadland said that we should legislate only where we have to. I think in this case it is incredibly important to legislate. We know that only 12% of all engineers are women, and that 25% of 16 to 18-year-old girls would consider becoming an engineer as opposed to 51.9% of boys in that age group. There is an incredibly hard glass ceiling, particularly in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, and in the kind of roles that will benefit from the funding that ARIA will receive.
We know that young women, and young men, are more likely to take up and aspire to positions if they can see people who look like them in those positions, see people who have succeeded, and know that there is an opportunity to climb the ladder rather than hit the glass ceiling, as people so often do in engineering. This would be a real opportunity for the Government to make it clear that it is incredibly important to have women in these roles. Maths is not just for boys; it is a subject for everybody. When I was doing my advanced higher maths, I was the only girl in the class. Not one other girl had chosen to take advanced higher maths. It was not a small class, it was a class of about 20, and it was because people felt that it was a boys’ subject and girls should not be taking it.
It is important that the Government agree to such an amendment. If the Minister is unwilling to, it would be helpful to hear how the Government plan to increase the gender balance on the board and ensure that women are appointed to these roles. For example, they have said to FTSE companies that they need to have a percentage of women on those boards, but they are not putting that into the legislation in this instance and it is important that they do so.
The Opposition’s amendment 9 in relation to diversity is an incredibly good amendment. In fact, I am quite upset I did not think of it. We have a similar problem with diversity in engineering. Mainly white men are in these positions, and people in school do not look at these positions and think, “I’m going to aspire to do this,” because they do not see people like them in those roles.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South and I represent Aberdeen constituencies, where Robert Gordon University and Aberdeen University do a lot around engineering, oil and gas. We have thankfully seen a significant amount of immigration to our city because of the oil and gas. Outside London, the highest percentage of non-UK-born citizens is in Aberdeen. That means a significant number of people from ethnic minority groups are in the engineering profession, but again we have the same issue. It is very unusual to go into a room full of oil and gas executives and for any of them not to be white, and it is fairly unusual for any of them to be women, although we are seeing an increase in those numbers. These amendments would make clear the Government’s intentions and say to organisations such as the FTSE companies that are being asked to have gender balance on their boards, “We are doing this too; we are leading by example”.
Aaron Bell
It is really nice to see the hon. Member back in London. I know it is a burden for SNP Members to come all the way down to the United Kingdom Parliament, but it is lovely to see her in person.
I do not think the Government are doing so badly on diversity, particularly on women. I reassure the hon. Member and the Opposition that, in relation to their amendments, the panel will be selected by Sir Patrick Vallance and other independent advisers. The job that they have done during covid demonstrates how many women we have in positions of scientific importance. We have the women we mentioned earlier: Dame Jenny Harries, Dame Ottoline Leyser, who gave evidence to us, and the Science Minister herself. From the diversity perspective, I think the absolute hero of the press conferences has been Professor Jonathan Van-Tam, who has been a wonderful communicator to the whole country, so I gently say to the hon. Member that I do not think it is as bad as all that and that the amendments are therefore unnecessary.
Kirsty Blackman
I was hoping that I was not being too critical of the Government. I did not intend to say the UK Government are terrible in this regard. I think they have done some good things around gender balance on boards, for example. I would have gone further, but they were a good start. I am not hugely critical of where things are, but I think a kind of stamp on this Bill, to say, “This is the direction we would like to go to”, would be helpful.
This can be done. We have done it in Scotland with the Scottish National Investment Bank. Our amendment is very similar to the proposal in relation to the investment bank—we are doing a huge amount for our public bodies. The investment bank intends to have a significant number of women on it, and it is the same for gender representation on public boards in Scotland more generally. I would very much appreciate it if the Minister let us know whether the Government will take the actions that we have proposed in our amendment. If not, what do they intend to do to ensure that people from diverse backgrounds are included?
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I apologise to the Bill Committee for not being here at the start. That was due to a medical appointment that I could not avoid. I am sorry to have missed the opening speeches.
Labour welcomes this debate and the interest and proposed investment in advanced research and innovation through this agency. We have concerns about the Bill as it stands, which will I will go through in some detail, amendment by amendment. We champion our world-leading scientists, and we recognise the importance of giving science and engineering in this country the opportunity to enable us to build back better and create a fairer and more progressive world.
Amendment 9, which stands in my name and those of my hon. Friends, follows on nicely from the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North. I am sorry to have missed part of her remarks, but I caught most of them. We echo her desire to see diversity on the board of ARIA. I was very drawn to her comments about the oil industry in Aberdeen North. I worked as an engineer for 20 years before coming to Parliament, and I spent some of that time in Nigeria working not in the industry but with oil engineers, so I know about the lack of diversity that she is referring to and how challenging it can be to be the only person of one’s gender, ethnicity or class in the room.
Our amendment seeks to ensure that, in appointing members of ARIA,
“The Secretary of State must…have regard to the diversity of the members including the representation of those with protected characteristics.”
“Protected characteristics” has the meaning given by part 2, chapter 1 of the Equality Act 2010. That would require the Secretary of State to have regard to the diversity of the board when using their powers of appointment.
Labour wants to ensure that agencies such as ARIA are of benefit to the entire nation—indeed, to all nations in the United Kingdom—and every region and citizen. It is clear that, at the moment, diversity is not the strong point of our science establishment. Only 7% of managers, directors and senior officials in academic and non-academic higher education positions are black, Asian or minority ethnic, and only 24% of the UK STEM workforce are women. That has to change if we are to create a welcoming and inclusive culture in United Kingdom research and development. The Government’s R&D roadmap states:
“Equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) is a critical aspect of research culture…UKRI will develop and launch bold initiatives to increase the participation, retention and promotion of a diversity of talent into R&D.”
I know that the Minister takes these issues seriously, so why is there no reference to diversity in this new agency? This Bill is a real opportunity for action. If the Government are serious about a forward-looking diversity programme, they must ensure that ARIA has diversity at its heart.
We want ARIA to be world leading and to make breakthroughs of which the whole United Kingdom can be proud. We cannot allow the research breakthroughs of tomorrow to be held back and hamstrung by old attitudes of the past. We are never going to unlock the full potential of our research sector if we do not use the talents of everyone. There are real issues with diversity in the UK science sector, with black and minority ethnic men 28% less likely to work in STEM than white men, and women representing 9% of people in non-medical STEM careers. Yet we face a shortfall of 173,000 STEM workers, which is estimated to cost the sector £1.5 billion a year.
The reason I am so determined that ARIA should reflect the importance of diversity is because when I graduated from Imperial in 1987—a long, long time ago—around 13% of engineering students were women. In my year at Imperial it was 12%. If we fast forward some 30 years—more than a quarter of a century—the figures have increased by 2 percentage points. In a quarter of a century, that is the amount of progress we have made in this critical area. We must not show any complacency or think that this will happen over time. As we have seen, it does not happen over time; it requires action.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
Will the hon. Lady give way?
Chi Onwurah
I am happy to give way to an hon. Member who is a great champion of diversity in science.
Stephen Metcalfe
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. Does she recognise that the Government have taken steps in this direction, particularly during the year of engineering in 2018 and in the subsequent creation of an engineering envoy to try to continue to promote engineering to everyone, regardless of background, gender or ethnicity? The Government are alive to the issues and take them seriously, so mandating it in this amendment is not the right way forward. We need to do exactly what the hon. Lady said, which is to set up projects that let people decide that engineering is the career for them.
Chi Onwurah
I am grateful to the hon. Member for his intervention. I recognise the sterling work that he did as Chair of the Science and Technology Committee and as the Government’s envoy during the year of engineering, and that he now does as chairperson of the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology. He is not talking about this issue now simply because it has become more fashionable; he has a long history in this area.
I did not mean to imply that the Government have not taken any action. It is important for the Government to promote engineering, but in this, as in everything, itis the outcomes that matter, not the words. At the heart of this Bill is the creation of an institution. There are many challenges facing our research environment, including the lack of private investment in research and the lack of venture capital investment in early start-ups.
The Government have chosen to respond with an institution, and therefore it should reflect the Government’s priorities when it comes to diversity. If part of the answer to the challenges facing the scientific community is a new institution, at the heart of it must be the diversity that we want to see in the science establishment.
Obviously, I am not the only person to raise this issue; we heard earlier from the hon. Member for Aberdeen North, and it was clear from witness evidence that there was significant support for ARIA acting as an agent of change in this important matter. Professor Leyser, the chief executive officer of UKRI, said:
“I have to think about all parts of the system. I have to think about the people—do we have the right kinds of people in the system, the right mix, the right diversity, the right set of skills, and the right career trajectories and pathways through the system?”
If the person who is in charge of the greatest portion of the UK R&D budget has to think about that, why not ARIA? We also heard from Tris Dyson of Nesta Challenges, who said specifically of the proposed agency that
“we think that there is an opportunity to explore new avenues and do things slightly differently. Some of the opportunities that that presents, both through ARIA and more generally, is around boosting the diversity of people involved in frontier technology and innovation and improving geographical reach.”––[Official Report, Advanced Research and Invention Agency Public Bill Committee, 14 April 2021; c. 5-7, Q3.]
I hope that the Minister will explain how that will be realised if not through an amendment such as amendment 9.
We also heard really important evidence from Dr Dugan of Wellcome, who is a past director of DARPA. She said:
“What I can tell you about diversity from my own experience, both in Silicon Valley and at DARPA, is that for decades we have known that specificity of goal and outcome is a good way to get more equality and diversity in assessment of ideas and in people conducting or pursuing those ideas.”––[Official Report, Advanced Research and Invention Agency Public Bill Committee, 14 April 2021; c. 39, Q33.]
We will come on to consider this in further debate, but currently ARIA has no mission, no specificity of outcomes, and no diversity requirements.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady recognise that the Secretary of State will follow the code governing public appointments, which includes the principle that public appointments should reflect the diversity of our society?
Chi Onwurah
The hon. Lady makes an interesting point and it raises two issues. First, how the CEO will be recruited and which rules for public appointment that process will follow is not clear in the Bill, so perhaps the Minister will provide that information. If the Secretary of State has to follow those rules, surely the amendment simply makes it clear what he—he in this case—has to do, and ensures focus on and recognition of the requirements. I do not feel that those two considerations are incompatible.
Daniel Zeichner
Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a fundamental issue. There is a real problem particularly around design, as Caroline Criado Perez identified in her book “Invisible Women: Exposing data bias in a world designed for men”—some of us attended the book launch here a couple of years ago. Extraordinarily, she pointed out that a swathe of design was done without women in mind at all, so crash tests and so on do not work because they are tested on the wrong people. That reflects the danger of having a board without a wide range of people. I read somewhere the other day that the armed forces in some country had only just discovered that women require different underwear from men. There is a blinds pot here, and it goes back to blokes in sheds I am afraid.
Chi Onwurah
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I agree wholeheartedly. The fact that most technology and science has been designed and developed by a narrow demographic minority has great implications for our society. Sometimes I lie awake at night thinking of the wonderful inventions and technologies that we might have in the world had women and minorities been able to play a full part in our scientific development. My hon. Friend gave the example of how, as Caroline Criado Perez said in her book, so much of our world has not reflected the needs or interests of women, which is really important. I say to the Minister: the agency, which we will come back to a number of times, will fail. It is designed to fail. When it fails—not in general, but particularly—it needs to have the support of the public to understand the reason why it failed. To lock women out of the board, which is what it will effectively do, and not reflect the importance of diversity, will be a factor in public trust.
Amanda Solloway
I welcome the hon. Lady to her place.
This amendment concerns the appointment of ARIA’s non-executive members by the Secretary of State. I have been lucky enough to speak to many outstanding women during my time as science Minister: scientists; researchers; and those with other important perspectives who would bring great expertise and value to the ARIA board.
This is an issue that I am committed to more broadly, as the hon. Lady will know, through developing a people and culture strategy that will look to ensure that the UK has the people we need at all levels, working in a culture that gets the best out of everyone and which delivers the best outcomes for the country. That means looking to remove barriers and dismantle any inequalities in the system that limit the ambitions, inclusion and participation of people from any background. I recognise the objective of the amendment and its importance, but I also highlight the inadvertent dangers of placing legislative constraints on the recruitment and appointment of ARIA’s members.
However, I will emphasise for the hon. Lady the provision of the Equality Act 2010, as set out in schedule 3 of the Bill, which I am sure we will come on to discuss. ARIA will be subject to the public sector equality duty. This duty will also apply to appointments made to ARIA by the Secretary of State. That means seeking to advance equality of duty between those who share a protected characteristic and those who do not.
As the hon. Lady will be aware, protected characteristics include sex and gender reassignment, and I believe that this duty should place—as it was designed to do—important issues of gender equality on the appropriate legislative footing. Therefore, I hope that she recognises that there is no need to make any provision in the Bill, and will withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 9 also concerns the appointment of ARIA’s non-executive members by the Secretary of State. In considering it, I will return to the Equality Act 2010, to which ARIA will be subject, and the public sector equality duty. As I have said, I believe that this duty should place, as it is been designed to do, the important issue of inclusion and equality on an appropriate legislative footing. Appointments made by the Secretary of State will follow the governance code for public appointments. The code includes the following principle:
“Public appointments should reflect the diversity of the society in which we live and appointments should be made taking account of the need to appoint boards which include a balance of skills and backgrounds.”
I therefore hope that the hon. Lady recognises that there is no need to make any further provision in the Bill and will withdraw her amendment.
Kirsty Blackman
This has been quite an interesting debate and I particularly enjoyed the speech by the shadow Minister; I thought it was very good. However, I did not expect to be discussing women’s underwear during the course of this Bill Committee.
It is the case in relation to things being designed for men that such things happen. We see that if we consider the fact that endometriosis treatments, for example, are few and far between, because researchers and organisations do not put money into researching things that are “women-only problems”, because for some reason we matter less. It is therefore incredibly important that the Government take positive steps in this regard.
Engineering and innovation will be the future for us. I have already said that I represent Aberdeen. We are looking at having a just transition; we are looking at moving Aberdeen away from its focus on oil and gas to a focus on renewable energy and the energies of the future. We will not have those energies of the future or the design and innovation that we will need unless we have diversity in the research environment and unless we have a significant number of people from different backgrounds, all with different life experiences, considering how best to solve problems. For young people considering coming into these organisations, having women and people with other protected characteristics on boards such as that of ARIA would mean that they are more likely to be able to aspire to those roles.
Stephen Metcalfe
I agree that we need to hold people up as examples to encourage people from far more diverse backgrounds to come into engineering and all STEM subjects. However, the amendment would mandate the percentage of women sitting on the board of ARIA. The UKRI board, with 13 members, has six women, without that being mandated and using the Equality Act 2010. The Equality Act is delivering our aims. Let us talk about how we get more people from diverse backgrounds into engineering. In my view, this is not the way to do it.
Kirsty Blackman
I thank the hon. Member for his input. I was not trying to criticise the actions of the UK Government in this area—in lots of other areas, but not in this one. Positive steps have been made. In Scotland, we have a duty of gender diversity on boards and it has worked. We have proved that it has worked across public sector boards. It has made a positive difference. People can say that we might not need to legislate for it, but it is a safeguard. It ensures that we have that percentage of women on the board and that we have diversity in all appointments in relation to ARIA.
Dawn Butler
I thank the hon. Member for her informative contribution, which I have found fascinating. It is great that UKRI has that diversity on its board without it being mandated—I would suggest that that is another reason why ARIA and UKRI need to have a memorandum of understanding. Is it not important that there is some communication if that diversity is going to be taken into consideration? As the hon. Member says, if it is not mandated, we are just relying on good faith.
Kirsty Blackman
I absolutely agree. This measure should be included in the Bill as a safeguard or a fallback—a failsafe. I appreciate the public sector equality duty exists, but that is not strong enough to give me comfort.
When women do engineering degrees, they get better degrees than men. They get a better class of degree—the statistics prove it. If we want the highest possible quality of people, from diverse backgrounds, pushing innovation forward and trying to, for example, make the renewable energy technologies of the future, we need to ensure diversity on the board and more widely in the staff of ARIA.
Chi Onwurah
I echo the disappointment of the hon. Member for Aberdeen North in the Minister’s response, who takes this issue very seriously. The architect of ARIA and the debate around it have focused very much on great individual minds of science, generally men, and how they should be left on their own to go off and discover new and exciting things. These amendments would send a really important message to the science community that ARIA is an inclusive agency and that, regardless of what some may have said or envisaged, this is about the whole of the United Kingdom. I would emphasise that we still have far, far to go to reflect diversity in the science community.
Stephen Flynn
I beg to move amendment 31 in schedule 1, page 6, line 22, at end, insert—
“(3A) The Secretary of State may not appoint a person as chair unless the appointment of that person has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.
(3B) ARIA may not exercise any functions under this or any other Act, nor may the Secretary of State make any grants to ARIA under section 4 of this Act, until its first chair has been appointed.”
This amendment requires both Houses of Parliament, under the affirmative resolution procedure, to approve the name of the proposed Chair. ARIA may not exercise any functions, nor may the Secretary of State make any grants to ARIA until its first chair has been appointed.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 10 in schedule 1, page 6, line 26, at end insert
“with the consent of the Science and Technology Select Committee of the House of Commons.”
This amendment would require that the Secretary of State seeks and obtains the consent of the Science and Technology Committee of the House of Commons for the appointment of ARIA’s first Chief Executive Officer.
Amendment 33 in schedule 1, page 6, line 26, at end insert
“(1A) The Secretary of State may not appoint a person as Chief Executive Officer unless the appointment of the person has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.
(1B) ARIA may not exercise any functions under this or any other Act, nor may the Secretary of State make any grants to ARIA under section 4 of this Act, until its first Chief Executive Officer has been appointed.”
This amendment requires both Houses of Parliament, under the affirmative resolution procedure, to approve the name of the proposed Chief Executive Officer. ARIA may not exercise any functions, nor may the Secretary of State make any grants to ARIA until its first Chief Executive Officer has been appointed.
Amendment 32, in clause 4, page 2, line 21, at beginning insert
“Subject to paragraph 2(3B) of Schedule 1,”.
This amendment is consequential to Amendment 31.
Amendment 34, in clause 4, page 2, line 21, at beginning insert
“Subject to paragraph 3(1B) of Schedule 1,”.
This amendment is consequential to Amendment 33.
Stephen Flynn
I would like to echo, first and briefly, the sentiments of my colleague in thanking the Clerks for their diligent work in the run-up to this Bill Committee and also to thank all of the witnesses who came to the evidence session last week. I found it incredibly informative and the hon. Member for Cambridge was right to highlight that at the start of today’s proceedings.
Amendment 31 and those related to it are quite simple. To coin a phrase that is oft used by Conservative Members, it is a way for this place to take back control. It is not a phrase that I would use willingly too often, for fear of sounding like them, but in this regard, it is a good way of summarising what is in front of us. It comes back to a key theme that runs through everything to do with ARIA and this entire concept. The hon. Member for Cambridge touched on it in respect of clarity. What is the Bill seeking to achieve? What is going to be the mission and the focus?
We heard during the evidence session that much of that determination of what the Bill seeks to achieve and the direction it takes is going to default to the chair, the CEO and those who are involved. They are going to fill the vacuum that the Government are leaving. That is fine, I assume, from the Government’s perspective, but it is incumbent on us as Members of this place, who are presiding over a significant amount of public money, to have a keen interest in what ARIA is seeking to achieve. The best and a very simple way we can do that is to ensure we have a chair and a CEO in place who we feel are pointing in the right direction. That is an important point to make, because—I am loath to mention him— Dominic Cummings in his evidence session and in the public domain has ties with people whose views are questionable, to say the least. I say “ties”, but he referenced scientists who promote the likes of eugenics and we need to be mindful of these things and that there are people out there who have views that are abhorrent. We do not know who the chair is going to be. We do not know who the CEO is going to be. We can trust the judgment of the Secretary of State or we can all play a part in deciding that. It is incumbent on all of us when we are talking about such a significant amount of public money to do our duty: to take back control and make sure ARIA has the direction that it requires.
Chi Onwurah
Amendment 10, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friends, reflects many of the concerns articulated by the SNP spokesperson—the hon. Member for Aberdeen South—and would require the Secretary of State to seek and obtain the consent of the Science and Technology Committee of the House of Commons to the appointment of ARIA’s first chief executive officer. Some members of the Bill Committee serve on the Select Committee and know how well able the Science and Technology Committee is to hold to account the potential—future—CEO of ARIA.
I feel that this amendment is particularly important because, in a response to a parliamentary question that I received just yesterday, the Minister made it clear that the recruitment of the first CEO was under way and that no interim CEO would be appointed. We therefore need to ensure that we get the first CEO right.
The driving factor behind the amendment is the need for greater oversight and responsibility. We are in the midst of a crisis of confidence; a scandal of sleaze is overwhelming this House and many of its institutions. I will start with a quote:
“The lunches, the hospitality, the quiet word in your ear, the ex-ministers and ex-advisers for hire, helping big business find the right way to get its way.”
That is how former Prime Minister David Cameron described back in 2010 the next big scandal to hit British politics. I want all members of this Bill Committee to think long and hard about the way the Bill is currently drafted. It leaves £800 million of taxpayers’ money, and our scientific future, open to just that level of sleaze.
We see in the current cronyism scandal the consequences of placing power and responsibility in the hands of those who are not accountable and do not have the moral judgment to hold that power wisely in the public interest. This Bill places huge power and responsibility in the hands of the CEO of ARIA, with little ongoing accountability, a significant budget and none of the checks provided by the usual public procurement and freedom of information rules. It is critical that there be parliamentary oversight of the choice of CEO if we are to avoid both sleaze and, equally important, the appearance of sleaze. This CEO needs the confidence of the UK’s scientific community: they will have a huge challenge. But they will receive that confidence only if they are appointed on merit. The Bill was drafted before the current sleaze scandal and reflects far too much the “Ask no questions—that’s too much bureaucracy” approach. We see where that has got us.
Labour’s Opposition day debate on 14 April, just last week, highlighted the fact that the Greensill scandal is just the tip of the iceberg of the cronyism rife in the Conservative party during the pandemic and long before. It is laced through the billions of pounds-worth of contracts paid for by taxpayers and of a slew of troubling senior appointments.
Bill Committee testimony from Government witnesses such as Professor Philip Bond, and Dominic Cummings’ evidence earlier to the Science and Technology Committee contained multiple references to trusting the leaders of ARIA with £800 million of taxpayers’ money with no purpose or mission, none of the usual safeguards and complete freedom for the Secretary of State as to whom they appoint. We are concerned that this is a recipe for sleaze in science. There is no detail in the Bill—
Stephen Metcalfe
I am listening very closely to what the hon. Lady is saying, but I cannot imagine for one moment—I am sure that she cannot, either—that a chair or chief executive of ARIA would refuse an invitation from the Select Committee on Science and Technology to attend and answer questions. In the 11 years that I have been here, I have not been aware of a single incident of someone from the science community refusing to attend the Committee. To suggest that this could be science sleaze in the waiting is stretching the point way beyond reality.
Chi Onwurah
I am always grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s interventions, as he makes interesting—if inaccurate, in this case—points. Let me emphasise how it looks from the outside right now: we have all these friends getting contracts because they have the WhatsApp contact of the Secretary of State, and people appointed to be in charge of procurement also work for big producers. I am afraid that the Bill does not contain the necessary safeguards, and it is incumbent on the Committee to ensure that that kind of sleaze does not taint science.
Aaron Bell
One of the reasons why things look that way from the outside is the accusations made by the Opposition. I have an example. The hon. Lady was not here earlier—I completely accept that she had a reason for that—when I referred to Kate Bingham’s appointment, and the £670,000 spent last year on a crucial campaign to get hard-to-reach groups not only to take part in vaccine trials but to take the vaccine. At the time, the Leader of the Opposition said:
“You cannot justify that sort of money being spent”,
and the deputy leader of the Labour party said, “This cronyism stinks.” After what we saw last year, I think it a little rich of the Opposition to go round suggesting that this is the problem, when, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock said, the Science and Technology Committee, and all the science community, are very engaged. The idea that there would be scientific sleaze is frankly risible.
Chi Onwurah
Before I give way to my hon. Friend or address the latest intervention, I will finish addressing one of the points made by the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock. He said that he could not imagine that any chair or CEO of ARIA would not agree to give evidence to the Science and Technology Committee. I remind him that Dominic Cummings, who was not the chair of ARIA but was certainly its chief architect, refused to give evidence to this Committee on the basis that he had already given evidence to another Committee, and once was enough in terms of accountability.
Chi Onwurah
Let me deal with the previous interventions, to which I am currently trying to respond. The hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock says that he cannot imagine such a circumstance, but I want undeniable accountability written through the Bill. I am concerned about the level of accountability in the Bill, and in some of the evidence, and in other discussion on the Bill, it has been suggested that accountability is a good thing, because that bureaucracy prevents people getting their own way. Perhaps the CEO might feel that they have better things to do than be accountable. In addition, this is about making the appointment of the CEO subject to the scrutiny of the Science and Technology Committee. What could be wrong with that?
As for the intervention from the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, it is the first time that I have heard The Telegraph called the Opposition. The charges of sleaze are far broader than those coming from the Labour party. Indeed, it really cannot be said that we have led the charge when it comes to concerns about multiple examples of sleaze. I was really interested in the vaccine taskforce example that the hon. Gentleman gave. I congratulate the vaccine taskforce, and indeed the NHS. It is interesting that it is never called the “NHS vaccine roll-out” but we do talk about NHS Test and Trace, when the NHS is rolling out the vaccine much more than it is testing and tracing.
I asked about that £650,000 funding at parliamentary questions, and it did not go towards finding hard-to-reach groups—I will write to the hon. Gentleman with the response. It may have gone to good purposes, but to argue that it was for hard-to-reach groups is to take accountability away from that expenditure. That is worthy of criticism.
Dawn Butler
The Government are going to extraordinary lengths to avoid scrutiny. We have seen that time and again, from the closing down of Parliament to awarding themselves Henry VIII powers. The Science and Technology Committee, on which I and the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme sit, is a good Committee that comes up with good results. We are, in the main, collegiate and work together in the name of science and its progress. It is not unusual for appointments to flow through the Science and Technology Committee—that is how Parliament works—so the amendment is not asking for something extraordinary. It is saying, “Let’s continue what we do in Parliament on scrutiny and oversight.” I fail to understand why the Government are so opposed to any form of scrutiny on ARIA.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme says that people outside may be thinking about sleaze because of what the Opposition are doing. I disagree. They are understanding sleaze because of what the Government are doing, what the Good Law Project is doing in taking the Government to court and what Byline Times and other investigative journalists are doing in highlighting the cronyism and corruption. If the Bill is to go through, we need to ensure that those allegations are not levelled at it, because we do not want sleaze in science. That is the last thing we need.
Jane Hunt
I have two points. First, UKRI is not broken. It is a great service that offers, through a process of application, grants and so on, a means to research and development. What ARIA does is create an opportunity for exceptional brains to make exceptional decisions and, with some money behind them, to try to develop things. It is not underhand or any of the things being said; it is just an opening and an opportunity. Someone said the other day that the coders in their bedrooms, who do not have the resources to make bids or applications, nor the language behind them to be successful, can get into that system. UKRI is not broken; ARIA is something separate.
With absolutely the greatest respect to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central, who was not here at the beginning, for good reasons, a number of Opposition Members have referred to Dominic Cummings. I am sorry, but I am not happy about that; we have before us a highly respected female Minister putting forward the Bill. We should respect her and her position and stop referring to somebody unelected who is not even in the room.
Chi Onwurah
There were a number of important interventions. Let me first respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central. She was right and did well to remind us of the normalcy of the Science and Technology Committee looking at important science appointments and how eminently qualified the Committee is to do that. I referred somewhat light-heartedly to The Telegraph not being the Opposition. She did well to remind us that important elements of the sleaze scandals—plural—that are circulating were discovered by investigative journalism of the highest quality, sometimes outside the mainstream press, which is not often appropriately and adequately supported on access.
On the hon. Member for Loughborough’s intervention, first, it is not the Opposition who are saying that UKRI is broken. She does not like my mentioning Dominic Cummings, but I must say that he and others have criticised UKRI and the existing science establishment. Let us remind ourselves that UKRI is only three years old, but they have criticised it as inadequate and argued for the creation of something that is not subject to huge bureaucracy. She claims that this will not be a barrier to the great coder in their garage who has some fantastic idea.
We are trying to prevent ARIA from being used simply by those in the know who have connections. That great coder in their garage is unlikely to know who to apply to for an ARIA grant or prize and will not have the connections to get to the front of the queue. I am sure that the Minister has considered that sometimes bureaucracy is about ensuring equality of access and opportunity. ARIA wants to move fast, and we recognise that, but it needs to ensure that the right accountability and confidence are in place. As other hon. Members have emphasised, we cannot allow the kind of sleaze we have seen elsewhere, particularly with regard to procurement during the pandemic. We cannot allow that in science. I will not allow it to stain our great scientific heritage and hope for the future.
I have mentioned the Minister’s interest a number of times. I hold her in the greatest respect, but she is very misplaced in her argument that I am somehow discriminating against her by referring to the self-vaunted architect of ARIA—he made that much clear during his Select Committee evidence, and he implied that it was one of the conditions for his becoming the Prime Minister’s chief adviser—and to the antecedents of the agency that this Bill is about. That does her credibility no favours.
Let me continue. I am happy to take interventions, although I imagine that the Whips would like us to make progress. With none of the usual safeguards, and with complete freedom for the Secretary of State appointed by the Government, we are concerned that this is a recipe for sleaze in science. There is no detail in the Bill—perhaps the Minister could think about how to approve this—about who, if anyone, will play a role in making or scrutinising the appointments of chair, non-executive members and the first chief executive officer. There must be a concern about cronyism and protecting ARIA’s independence.
Let me consider a point made earlier. We do not know whether the roles of the chair and chief executive of ARIA will be added to the schedule of the Public Appointments Order in Council so that they can be independently regulated by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. If the answer is yes, I would appreciate clarity. Will the significant appointments to the roles of chair and chief executive of ARIA require a senior independent panel member, approved by the commissioner, to sit on the advisory assessment process? If not, how will the Secretary of State ensure a fair and open-minded recruitment process for those positions?
The public are frankly tired of backroom deals between mates who go to the same pub. I want the CEO to have a transformative impact on British society. It is right that at least their appointment should be subject to public scrutiny. There has been much criticism of the revolving door between the public and private sector. We want ARIA to be above such criticism. Let us not allow it to become mired in grubby deals before it has even begun.
Some might say that the Government are taking a rather Stalinist approach to scientific research, where a small group of really smart men, as it always was, are left to decide how best to pursue socioeconomic projects. That is a model that basically entrusts resources to a small group of experts, without democratic oversight. I thought the other side were not over-enamoured with experts. If a Labour Government had done that, one suspects they would have had to face comparison to some of the USSR’s leaders.
I emphasise that I do not believe that the Minister is subject to groupthink, and I am sure, or at least I hope, that the Secretary of State would never compromise himself in the way that the Conservative ex-Prime Minister David Cameron has, by giving jobs to buddies, but the fact is that people recruit people like themselves. Surely we need broader input. Dominic Cummings said in his evidence to the Science and Technology Committee that the agency should have “extreme freedom”. The very least we should expect is that Parliament should be able to scrutinise the appointment.
To emphasise that our concerns are credible and legitimate, I point the Committee to supporting points made in evidence. Dame Ottoline Leyser from UKRI said:
“The whole ability of this organisation to operate in this edge-of-the-edge really visionary way that we are all very excited about is critically dependent on those people; and they are in very short supply.”—[Official Report, Advanced Research and Invention Agency Public Bill Committee, 14 April 2021; c. 8, Q4.]
She added that
“it is crucial for the success of ARIA—it is everything. We need to go into the search process with absolute resolve to wait until we find the right people, and not appoint people just because there is a vacancy.”––[Official Report, Advanced Research and Invention Agency Public Bill Committee, 14 April 2021; c. 16, Q13.]
On the mission, Professor James Wilsdon said that
“in relying on appointing the leadership as the route to answering the question, all you do is move the source of the problem.”
That is why the amendment is so important. The Government are not taking responsibility for the mission, so the mission is with the chief executive officer. Surely the CEO must have some accountability. As Professor Wilsdon went on to say:
“If the Government have not been able to resolve the question of what it is for, how do we identify who the right leaders are?...I don’t see how you can find the right people. If you do find people, how do you avoid it simply becoming a tool, a plaything, of their prior interests and priorities?” ––[Official Report, Advanced Research and Invention Agency Public Bill Committee, 14 April 2021; c. 19, Q16.]
The Science and Technology Committee could investigate prior interests and priorities.
We heard from Professor Philip Bond that he is
“a big believer in giving the chair and the director enormous amounts of autonomy. You pick people you are willing to bet on and then hand them a lot of trust.”––[Official Report, Advanced Research and Invention Agency Public Bill Committee, 14 April 2021; c. 25, Q20.]
We are agreed that the Bill hands a lot of trust to the CEO, without making them accountable to Parliament or the public.
Finally, I want to quote from ARIA’s statement of policy intent:
“In shaping the research, culture, and setup of ARIA, the first CEO will have a significant effect on the technological and strategic capabilities of the UK over the course of generations. They will establish the philosophies, working styles, and cultural norms that make ARIA effective and distinct. They will recruit the first cohort of Programme Managers…enable them to launch the first programmes, sign the first research partnerships, and help define the strategic advantages the programmes aim for. They will position ARIA as a distinctive part of the UK’s research funding landscape that complements and expands the UK’s funding capability.”
Given the importance of the role, as clearly set out in that statement, to the science and technology landscape of this country, how can the Minister refuse to allow the Science and Technology Committee to have a role in that appointment?
Amanda Solloway
Amendment 10 would require the Secretary of State to seek the consent of the Science and Technology Committee before appointing ARIA’s first CEO. Amendments 31 to 34 would require the proposed chair and CEO of ARIA to be approved by both Houses through secondary legislation.
These amendments reflect the welcome interest across Parliament in ARIA and the recognition that the agency’s success is dependent on the right leadership, as has been mentioned. In regard to the amendments, there is no equivalent precedent, such as in the case of UK Research and Innovation. As such, we will soon launch a robust recruitment process and have designed it such that only the very best candidates will be appointed as ARIA’s first CEO and chair. An experienced and expert panel will be responsible for sifting and interviewing candidates. It will feature the Government’s chief scientific adviser Sir Patrick Vallance and Jo Shanmugalingam, who is director general for science, innovation and growth at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. They will be accompanied by two highly esteemed panellists from the international R&D community, whose names will be announced in due course. The final appointments will be made by the Secretary of State, who will continue to have responsibility for appointing non-executives, including future chairs.
The chair, in consultation with other non-executive members, will appoint future executives, including CEOs. Last week, Philip Bond told us that
“if you want to define the ARPA model at some level, it is this: it is a different model of trust.” ––[Official Report, Advanced Research and Invention Agency Public Bill Committee, 14 April 2021; c. 25, Q20]
We trust the chair to make, in consultation with other non-executive members, appointments to the executive board. Placing additional limitations on that would, therefore, be contrary to the important principle of ARIA’s operation. Of course, the Select Committee will be able to call on ARIA’s leadership, to take evidence and understand their vision for the role. That point was made by the Secretary of State when he appeared before the Committee on 17 March. I therefore think that the process is open, fair and robust. It is completely sufficient for finding the right people.
Daniel Zeichner
Surely there is a fundamental point here about the relationship between Government and Parliament, and exactly the same point could be made about every single kind of appointment. This is a power grab by Government. The Science and Technology Committee would behave perfectly properly in making any kind of assessment. Why are the Government attacking Parliament in this way?
Amanda Solloway
As I previously explained, there is no precedent in the system. We will be recruiting in the same way as we do for UKRI, and it does not go into legislation. I am very confident that we will have a full and robust process for appointing the chief executive. I therefore think that this is an open, fair and robust process. It is completely sufficient for finding the right people to be the chair and chief exec of ARIA and to make it a success. As such, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.
Stephen Flynn
I want briefly to reflect on a couple of the Minister’s remarks. She has twice referred to the fact that there is, of course, no precedent to what has been suggested and used UKRI as an example. However, it is possible to make freedom of information requests of UKRI, and the organisation is subject to public contract auditors, so the comparison is not fair or just. I respectfully suggest to the Minister that it is apples and oranges, and I think she needs to reflect on that
The Minister also said that she does not want to infringe on the principle of ARIA. What about the principle of scrutiny? What about the principle of Parliament playing its role in that process? Does that mean nothing to the Government? The hon. Member for Cambridge hit the nail firmly on the head with his final comments. The relationship between Government and Parliament is an important one, and I find it utterly bizarre, as I said earlier, that a group of MPs who were all elected on a platform of taking back control are so happy to give it away to a single individual. Surely they can all see how utterly bizarre that is, and how the public will reflect on that with complete and utter dismay.
I will reflect briefly on the debate. I am sure that many of the points will be raised again later, particularly in relation to FOI, public contracts and the sleaze in which the Government are obviously enveloped. I have to admire the courage of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, who has tried incredibly hard to defend the Government. I would suggest that perhaps he is trying to defend the indefensible. I am sure the Government Whip is incredibly impressed at the hon. Gentleman’s hard work in that regard, but he needs to be mindful about how tone deaf he perhaps sounds.
The very notion from the hon. Member for Loughborough that we cannot mention Dominic Cummings, even though he is the architect of the Bill, is utterly absurd. Did she not watch his evidence?
Jane Hunt
My point was that Dominic Cummings has been mentioned very frequently, but when debating the previous amendment we talked about wanting to promote women and their status in society and in science. We have here a Science Minister, but we are not referring to her with respect; we are referring to somebody else. That is what I was talking about.
Stephen Flynn
I am glad that the hon. Lady has managed to make her point, but with all due respect, I do not think I, or indeed anyone, has impugned the Minister’s capabilities in any way, shape or form. All we have done is reflect on why the Bill is here in the way it is. It was set up by an individual who only got the role of chief adviser to the Prime Minister on the basis that this would become a thing. She needs to be very mindful of that.
To go back to my initial point about why we have tabled these amendments, it is about the role of this Parliament. It will be of no surprise to anyone in this room that I do not hold this Parliament in much regard. I would be quite happy for the people of Scotland to not have MPs in this Parliament, but while the public in Scotland are contributing money to this Parliament, it should have a role in providing scrutiny.
Dawn Butler
As a member of the Science and Technology Committee, I can say with almost absolute certainty that its Chair would be in favour of having a say in who becomes the CEO of ARIA.
Stephen Flynn
The hon. Lady has certainly made her point very well. I will sum up, because I am conscious of time and the fact that everyone else is, too. We heard during the evidence sessions that we want someone who is cross-cutting and who is not the usual suspect. We want someone who is a divergent figure. Let us play a role in making sure that we get that person.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
We are drawing to a close. I am mindful of the time—we have literally two minutes left—so we might as well end slightly early.
Advanced Research and Invention Agency Bill (Fourth sitting)
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 7, in schedule 1, page 6, line 24, at end insert—
“(5) The Secretary of State must, in appointing the members of ARIA, have regard to the desirability of the members (between them) having relevant experience.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to have regard to the (collective) relevant experience of ARIA’s members when using their power of appointment.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 8, in schedule 1, page 6, line 24, at end insert—
“(5) The Secretary of State must, in appointing the members of ARIA, have regard to the desirability of the members including at least one person with relevant experience in relation to each of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
(6) In this section, ‘relevant experience’ means experience of one or more of the following—
(a) the conduct of scientific research; and
(b) the development or exploitation of scientific knowledge.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to have regard to the (collective) relevant experience of ARIA’s members in the devolved nations when using their power of appointment.
Chi Onwurah
It is a pleasure, to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Cummins, and to return to our deliberations on the Advanced Research and Invention Agency Bill.
Both amendments concern the diversity and characteristics of the members of the board of the Advanced Research and Invention Agency. We have heard repeatedly in our deliberations that the board has a significant amount of power and autonomy. In our view, it suffers from lack of oversight, which the amendments are designed to address.
Amendment 7 would require the Secretary of State to have regard to the collective experience of ARIA’s members in the devolved nations when using the power of appointment. The Labour party believes that science can be an engine of progress for society, and that it needs to be by and for everyone, not a private cashpoint for the few. It is essential that everyone in each region of the UK benefits from the creation of ARIA.
The Government have made many levelling-up promises over the past 18 months, just as they have made many promises to support science, but it is reported that they are now on track to miss the R&D target spend of 2.4% of GDP, following the cuts to international science spend, which were debated in the Chamber this morning, and the failure to provide support to medical research charities during the pandemic, forcing them to make sweeping cuts. The Royal Society has said that the Government’s actions, such as the cuts to overseas development aid and science, and the lack of clarity until the last moment about Horizon European science funding are undermining the ambition for the UK to be a science power. We do not want the people of this country to be short-changed by the Bill, when it comes to the levelling-up agenda.
Levelling up is not possible without utilising the skills and experience of all those who have extensive knowledge of scientific research and knowledge in each nation of the United Kingdom. Each of the devolved nations possesses subtle and significant differences in their research landscapes. Our amendment would require the Secretary of State to have regard to the relevant experience of ARIA members when making appointments. We cannot expect ARIA to function effectively for every area of the Union, if its key decision makers and knowledge base are restricted to one narrow region of England. I am sure the Minister agrees.
Labour recognises that, as does UK Research and Innovation. In November 2020, UKRI chairman Sir John Kingman told the Select Committee on Science and Technology:
“We have structures that involve regular consultation with the devolved Administrations and the funding agencies in the devolved Administrations.”
He also told the Committee that this good working relationship was in contradiction to the decision not to have board-level regional representation. He said:
“It was decided at the time that there should not be representatives of the devolved countries on the board. In practice, I would say that there are two members of the current board.”
As we see, UKRI has had to struggle against the lack of representation on its board, so let us make it official and clear from the beginning that ARIA is a national body. Research and development is a vital driver of growth, and we must utilise ARIA in each region and nation to unlock new markets and create jobs. We all want significant improvement in the way in which the benefits of research and development are shared across our nation, and we want those who contribute to it to come from all areas of our nation. I therefore hope the Minister welcomes amendment 7, which would ensure that.
In the evidence sessions, we heard about the importance of public service in attracting good people to the ARIA board. Tabitha Goldstaub, the co-founder of CognitionX and the chair of the AI Council, said:
“The most important thing is that I just kept hearing time and again from the community I spoke to, similarly to what the gentleman from DARPA said, that this is a time to serve. People really want to find a place to do research that saves people’s lives, especially in the AI eco-system.”––[Official Report, Advanced Research and Invention Agency Public Bill Committee, 14 April 2021; c. 52, Q50.]
That desire to serve should be reflected by ensuring that we have people from across our nation serving. That is why we are proposing amendment 7.
Amendment 8 would require the Secretary of State to have regard to the diversity of the board members, including the representation of those with protected characteristics. The points that we are raising here were discussed in a previous debate on the SNP amendment grouped with one of our amendments, so I will not reiterate them, but I expect it to be recognised that science has a diversity problem. We want ARIA not to exacerbate that but to send a clear message against it. We are not looking to set specific quotas for ARIA, but we want to send a clear message to the scientific community and ARIA’s chief executive and chair, whoever they may be, that diversity is essential to successful scientific research. High-risk, high-reward research should not exclude women or representatives from across our nations and regions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Amanda Solloway)
Amendment 7 concerns the Secretary of State’s appointment of ARIA’s non-executive members. I have spoken to many experts, scientists and researchers about the creation of ARIA over the past six months, and one thing that has been made crystal clear to me is how important finding the right people will be to ARIA’s success. That point was reiterated to this Committee in the evidence session last Wednesday. The importance of finding the right people extends to ARIA’s non-executive members, and Professor Bond offered a valuable perspective on that. He was clear that we need a balance on the board and that it should include radical thinkers and those with different backgrounds in academia and industry. I was struck by his advice that we should have a board that was,, in his words “small” and “slightly unusual”. That is an important point.
We are looking to foster a culture that takes big bets and pursues transformational ideas. We have heard over and again how rare are the people who can do that. The difficulty in finding the mix of people to best support that activity means that we should impose as few constraints as possible and cast the net as widely as we can. That is a strong argument against placing inflexible legislative constraints on the background and experience of the limited number of people we are looking for before we have been begun that process.
We will conduct robust appointment processes that will follow the governance code for public appointments. That code includes principles of fairness, merit, diversity and integrity, which speak to the intention of the amendment.
Amanda Solloway
I can confirm that we are looking for incredible people; I have made that clear.
There is another area where we are in danger of over-engineering ARIA: in governance arrangements. Although I share the belief of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central that a well-balanced board will be important for ARIA, I also believe that there are sufficient incentives and processes to support that without any further legislative constraint. For that reason, I encourage the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.
Chi Onwurah
I thank the Minister for her response. Will she say whether there are any factors that the Secretary of State should consider when making these appointments? For example, schedule 9 to the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 establishes that the Secretary of State must consider the collective experience of the UKRI board when making appointments. Are there no factors that should be considered in the case of ARIA?
Amanda Solloway
As I said, we will have a really robust appointment process. All those things will be taken into account to get that incredibly special person that we need to lead ARIA.
Amendment 8 also concerns the appointment by the Secretary of State of ARIA’s non-executive members. As I have said, I strongly believe that we should impose as few constraints as possible and cast the net as widely as we can in finding ARIA’s members. There is a real risk that placing inflexible legislative constraints on the background and experience of that limited number of people we are looking for will hamper our ability to find the right person.
I do, however, recognise that it is important for ARIA to be fully connected to the outstanding R&D activity in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. That will require ARIA to build strong partnerships with institutions and businesses in all four nations. I echo comments from elsewhere about the fundamental importance of relationship building to this activity, but it is not necessarily possible to legislate for that. In the recruitment for the CEO and chair, we will work with the devolved Administrations and stakeholders across the United Kingdom to broaden the search for potential candidates, to encourage geographic diversity from the outset of these discussions. That approach, seeking as far as possible to ensure that the pool of people considered for positions in ARIA is representative of the geographic diversity of the UK, is the right one. ARIA would ultimately not be served by extensive and specific requirements that limit the options. I therefore cannot accept the amendment.
Chi Onwurah
I thank the Minister for her response. We are hearing again that ARIA is not to be subject to regulation or oversight, regardless of what form that takes. The flexibility of which the Minister speaks can be seen by others as cronyism or the opportunity to ensure cronyism. The public are sick of mates being appointed without oversight. As I said in my intervention, other boards, such as the UKRI board, are required to consider the experience of the board before making further appointments. Would the Minister consider it acceptable if the entire board came from, say, Cornwall, which is not very representative, or had expertise only in nanotechnology? Cornwall is a very nice place and nanotechnology is an excellent scientific subject, but we heard from witnesses about the importance of having diversity of thought, background and experiences.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
For the avoidance of doubt, we are happy to support the two amendments. On the issue of geographical experience, if we go with geographical knowledge as well, and perhaps get people who have specific expertise in, for example, energy-related technologies, such as we have around Aberdeen, and in technologies around AI, which we have in the area around Edinburgh, then we have geographic hubs as well as experience hubs. The amendment nicely allows for ARIA to make sure that it encapsulates all of that and not just, as the hon. Lady says, nanotechnology, which is brilliant but is not the only thing that we should focus on.
Chi Onwurah
I am in absolute agreement with the hon. Lady. She highlights an important issue. We want ARIA to be transformational. We heard the Minister underline that we want ARIA to transform real people’s lives, but how is ARIA to do that if its members do not have experience on the ground in the different regions and nations of our country and if they do not understand the way in which the supply chain works in Aberdeen, for example, for specific technologies and sectors? We do not want ARIA to have a narrow focus or a narrow background of expertise. On that basis, I wish to press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Chi Onwurah
I beg to move amendment 11, in schedule 1, page 6, line 31, leave out sub-paragraph 4 and insert—
“(4) The Secretary of State may refuse consent under sub-paragraph (3) only where the Secretary of State considers—
(a) it necessary or expedient in the interests of national security, or
(b) the person is unable or unfit to carry out the functions of the office.”
This amendment would allow the Secretary of State to refuse consent to the appointment of an executive member of ARIA on the basis of their unfitness or inability to carry out the functions of the office.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 12, in schedule 1, page 7, line 11, leave out sub-paragraph 2 and insert—
“(2) The Secretary of State may remove a person from office as an executive member if the Secretary of State considers—
(a) it necessary or expedient in the interests of national security, or
(b) the person is unable or unfit to carry out the functions of the office.”
This amendment would allow the Secretary of State to remove an executive member of ARIA on the basis of their unfitness or inability to carry out the functions of the office.
Chi Onwurah
I am not daunted by the 6:9 defeat that we have just experienced. We will continue in the hope of winning over Government Members to the improvements that we wish to see in the Bill. The amendments, which stand in my name and those of my hon. Friends, are just such constructive amendments to improve the Bill and, more specifically, to actually give the Secretary of State greater powers than he, perhaps in his modesty, has set out in the Bill.
Amendment 11 would allow the Secretary of State to refuse consent to the appointment of an executive member of ARIA on the basis of their unfitness or inability to carry out the functions of the office. Amendment 12 would allow the Secretary of State to remove an executive member of ARIA on the basis of their unfitness or inability to carry out the functions of the office. The amendments are necessary because greater oversight and responsibility are needed to avoid even the suggestion of the taint of sleaze being attached to science.
This morning, in response to amendment 10, through which we intended the Science and Technology Committee to review the appointment of the chief executive, I think the Minister said that we needed a different model of trust. The public need the existing models of trust to be upheld by our Parliament, our Ministers, our Executive, and the executives of agencies such as ARIA. It should also be clear that the Government are taking responsibility for who is on ARIA’s board and has control of £800 million of public money and, more important, control of our scientific—and therefore economic—future.
The Bill places huge responsibility and power in the hands of ARIA’s CEO with little ongoing accountability. The Secretary of State is responsible for appointing the chair, other non-executive members of the board, and the first CEO. All subsequent CEOs and all other executive board members will be appointed by the chair after consultation with the other non-executive members, as set out in paragraph 3(2) of schedule 1. Such appointments cannot be made without the consent of the Secretary of State, but as the Bill stands, the Secretary of State can refuse consent only on national security grounds. Why are national security grounds the only grounds on which somebody might not be fit or suitable to serve on the board of ARIA?
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
Should other grounds, such as wanting to pursue eugenics in great depth, not be considered reasons not to appoint somebody to a board?
Chi Onwurah
My hon. Friend raises an important point. As we heard in earlier discussions, there are concerns about the areas of science, such as eugenics, that might be championed or accepted by potential board members. I would hope that belief in eugenics was sufficient to consider someone unfit for the board, but, as it stands, the Secretary of State would currently have no power to refuse consent for an appointment on that basis. I find it interesting to consider the workings of the Secretary of State’s mind here. National security is clearly a critical issue, and it is the first duty of any Government to protect their citizens, but are there no other reasons why somebody might not be suitable?
Daniel Zeichner
This is an opportunity; we can help spare the Government future embarrassment. Quite frankly, if we have this set of out-there people running the organisation and they then choose to appoint someone highly controversial, it could be extremely embarrassing. I remember occasions when Labour Secretaries of State had difficulties with scientific advisers. These are controversial areas, and I can foresee an extremely difficult situation. Without an ability to intervene, where does it lead?
Chi Onwurah
My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is important to understand that ARIA will be an independent agency, but it will be spending taxpayers’ money and it will therefore reflect the public and the national interest. If somebody is recruited who, at the time or later on, is found to have views that are abhorrent to society, or not fit to serve on the board for other reasons, by what process could or would such a person be removed from the board? If, for example, after appointment of a member to the board, it was found that they championed eugenic research or that they believed in anti-vaccination mythologies, for example, would there be any means by which they could be removed?
Kirsty Blackman
Does the shadow Minister find it bizarre, as I do, that we have a higher bar for taxi drivers, for example, who have to pass a “fit and proper person” test in order to become a taxi driver, than for these people, who will be spending millions of pounds of public money? I recognise that that is a sensible thing to do, but there is not the level of oversight that we have for people such as taxi drivers.
Chi Onwurah
The hon. Lady makes a very good point on the comparison with a “fit and proper person” test for taxi drivers. That underlines the point I was going on to make. In the Bill, there is no statutory requirement for members of ARIA to possess scientific expertise or experience, whether individually or collectively. There is no floor—there is no minimum requirement—for their expertise. We have heard a lot about how wonderful and amazing and visionary they must be, but we have not heard about any floor for that expertise and, as I said earlier, there are no “have regard to” factors that the Secretary of State must consider when making appointments. Schedule 9 to the Higher Education and Research Act 2017, for example, establishes that the Secretary of State must consider the collective relevant experience of the UKRI board when making appointments. In this Bill, there is no floor. That is a huge concern for the Committee.
In the evidence session, Professor Philip Bond said:
“What you are doing in creating this kind of model is handing trust to people. You want people with high integrity who are brilliant, and then you let them get on with it, and you trust that they will do something that reflects their character.”––[Official Report, Advanced Research and Invention Agency Public Bill Committee, 14 April 2021; c. 25, Q20.]
With the examples that we have seen of Tory cronyism, do the Committee really think that we can just rely on trust when it comes to public interest and the public purse?
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
One of the fundamental roles of a director is to exercise reasonable care, skill and diligence. As that is part of the fundamental concept of a board, I would suggest it is the collective responsibility of the chief executive and the entire board, not the responsibility of the Secretary of State.
Chi Onwurah
The hon. Member makes an interesting point, and it would be excellent if we understood better how the board would collectively exercise responsibility. When we talk about a board exercising collective responsibility, that is absolutely true. That is right, and it is what happens in the private sector. I would be interested to know whether the reporting requirements on private sector boards will apply in this case, but this is public money. It is £800 million of public money—taxpayers’ money. Particularly as we come out of a pandemic and recession, there are many worthy recipients of that money. Is the hon. Member truly saying that it should be spent and directed by people who have no accountability and cannot be removed? The Secretary of State is responsible for their getting the money, but will have no ability to remove them, no matter how unfit they prove themselves to be. On the basis that the amendments offer the Secretary of State further powers to ensure the fitness of the board, I hope that the Minister will accept them.
Amanda Solloway
Amendment 11 would extend the right of the Secretary of State to refuse an executive member appointment to include refusal of consent where a person is
“unable or unfit to carry out the functions of the office.”
It is important that the Secretary of State’s refusal rights are limited to where it is necessary and expedient on national security grounds. The freedom for the chair to hire the executive leadership team is a key feature of ARIA’s independence from Government. The Secretary of State will hire a top-quality non-executive team who have the experience and expertise to oversee ARIA. We should trust their judgment to hire an exemplary set of executive members. I remind the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central that the Secretary of State will appoint the inaugural chief executive officer and will set the tone for the quality of the future executive member hired by the chair, and I hope she will withdraw her amendment on that basis.
I will now move to amendment 12, building on my comments with respect to amendment 11. Once appointed, the terms of employment for executive members’ contracts are determined by the chair, with the consent of the Secretary of State, and only after consulting other non-executive members. They are expected to include standard provisions that would allow the chair to remove an executive member from office if that person is deemed unfit or unable to carry out the functions of the office.
Chi Onwurah
I thank the Minister for her earlier comments. Can she clarify what she means when she says, “They are expected to include standard provisions”? Is she saying that they will include the explicit provision for the CEO and the chair to remove members, and under what criteria or circumstances?
Amanda Solloway
To reiterate, and building on my previous comments, contracts are determined by the chair. The contracts that people will have are to be negotiated. Furthermore, in extremis, the Secretary of State may remove the chair and other non-executive members if he or she is particularly concerned by the quality of executive members recruited by the chair. It is for those reasons that the amendment is not necessary, and I hope the hon. Lady will not press it.
Kirsty Blackman
We have asked an awful lot of questions about the appointment of the CEO and chair. Does the Minister understand that her answers have not given us comfort? To say that the roles will be appointed by the chair and the chief executive does not help us a huge amount, because we are not very happy about the process of appointing those people, so for them to be able to appoint other people does not help us in any way, shape or form. Having more safeguards in place would give us comfort that those people will be fit to do the job.
Chi Onwurah
I echo the point made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North. We recognise that a significant amount of power lies in the chief executive and the chair, and there is no oversight from Parliament or others of those appointments. To say that the chief executive and the chair will have the power according to contractual negotiations to remove members does not reassure us. The Minister said that the Secretary of State could, in extremis, remove the chair. Would she write to me to set out what the in extremis circumstances would be?
I am keen not to detain the Committee unnecessarily. We are raising important matters, but since the Minister is not happy to accept them, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Chi Onwurah
I beg to move amendment 13, in schedule 1, page 9, line 11, leave out paragraph 11 and insert—
“11 The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision establishing the procedures to be adopted for dealing with conflicts of interest of members of ARIA, members of a committee or sub-committee or ARIA’s employees.”
The amendment seeks constructively to improve the Bill by providing greater transparency and oversight, and thus avoid potential scandals of sleaze that are currently overwhelming various aspects of this Government. The amendment would require that the Secretary of State make regulations to establish the procedures to deal with conflicts of interest involving ARIA’s members and staff. We recognise that ARIA should have close links with the private sector. ARIA will not be able to achieve its transformational goal without working closely with the private sector.
As was stated in the evidence sessions, part of the UK’s particular challenge is the commercialisation of existing fantastic ideas, so working closely with the private section is important. However, the Committee must be aware that we have seen time and again, particularly now, that the revolving door between the private and public sectors can be open to abuse, especially—I say reluctantly—under this Government. Only last weekend, writing in The Observer—other newspapers are available; I mentioned The Daily Telegraph earlier, so I am trying to be fair—the senior Conservative MP and Chair of the Liaison Committee, the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) said:
“The line between public service and private gain is shamefully blurred”.
He went on to say:
“In the meantime, the government can establish not so much new rules but new processes and education, which encourage more of the proper conversations about values, integrity, ethics and how to behave when there might be potential, or even just perceived, conflicts of interest.”
He went on to recommend training in conflicts of interest. Again, we are constructively giving the Government —obviously the Bill was drafted before some of the scandals that they are embroiled in came to light—the opportunity to follow his advice.
Aaron Bell
I thank the hon. Lady for the other Newcastle for giving way. She draws a comparison with DARPA, but is the more obvious comparison not with UKRI? Like ARIA, UKRI is bound by the code of conduct for board members of public bodies, which includes. for example. the obligation to declare publicly any private financial or non-financial interests that may, or may be perceived to, conflict with one’s public duty. That speaks to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk made: we would not expect the kind of people we will appoint to the board to act in the ways that she seems to think they will.
Chi Onwurah
I thank the hon. Member for the second Newcastle for that contribution. I will make a couple of points in response. Let me gently say that Government members of the Committee are trying somewhat to have it both ways, in saying that ARIA will be like UKRI while not putting in place any of the measures, systems or processes of accountability to require it to be like UKRI, building on the fact that ARIA is, as I understand it, meant to fill a gap in our research landscape.
On whether ARIA will follow all the rules that UKRI follows, I am pretty sure that the answer to that is no, because as I understand it, it is not going to follow freedom of information or procurement rules. We have seen over the past few months with the scandal over Greensill—this is what the comments from the Chair of the Liaison Committee were about—that the existing rules and regulations are not sufficient. Finally, for the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme to say that we can expect these people to behave better because they are going to be better than that—really? Many scandals have been founded on expectations like that and again, we do not want the touch or hint of scandal near our fantastic science base.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
Can I have some clarity from the hon. Lady? The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme—the other Newcastle—was that there is already a written requirement for members of these kinds of bodies to make full disclosure. If they are going to ignore that, why does the hon. Lady think that they would not ignore a regulation from the Secretary of State saying exactly the same thing?
Chi Onwurah
I thank the hon. Member for his contribution, which I think was made in a constructive sense.
I think the Chair of the Liaison Committee is making a point about that guidance. Clearly, it was not sufficient for David Cameron and it is clearly not proving to be sufficient in other cases. I hope that, as this amendment sets out, it is not simply about declaring. This is a critical part and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to emphasise it. The amendment does not say they should declare conflicts of interest; it states that the Secretary of States makes regulations—detailed, I would say—establishing the procedures to deal with conflicts of interest. That is the key thing. This stems from the need to have a close working relationship with the private sector, which will give rise to conflicts of interest that may be quite complex, especially with new and evolving technologies, which may go on to complex and potentially international supply chains. Those conflicts of interest may be complex, involving equity stakes and so on. We need procedures to deal with them that are more detailed than the current general ones and which are specifically targeted at ARIA’s unique role.
Dr Regina Dugan, the chief executive officer of Wellcome Leap, effectively supported that proposal:
“The particular way that we work is through contracts; we do not actually do grants. I also think that this position of not taking equity is important, because the non-profit element of it is part of the differentiation, and we have an entire commercial sector that is good at assessing value and figuring out return on investment.”—[Official Report, Advanced Research and Invention Agency Public Bill Committee, 14 April 2021; c. 48, Q43.]
What is different with ARIA is that it is, potentially, going to be taking equity, which can raise more complex conflicts of interest.
Professor Pierre Azoulay of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology said that
“the programme managers at DARPA and also at ARPA-E—the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy—have a fixed expiration date, which means they will need to go back to academia or to the venture capital firm or large firm that they left, and generally they want to do so with their head held high and their reputation intact. I think that that has created over time a norm of correct behaviour, if you will, and the absence of cronyism.”—[Official Report, Advanced Research and Invention Agency Public Bill Committee, 14 April 2021; c. 38, Q30.]
We want to see that norm of correct behaviour established through supporting processes and procedures. I asked Dr Highnam,
“What should we be looking for in the directors and programme managers as the key positive part of the culture that ARIA should seek to build?”
He answered:
“Honour in public service is top of the list.”––[Official Report, Advanced Research and Invention Agency Public Bill Committee, 14 April 2021; c. 39, Q32.]
I should say that I have not heard any Government witness or Minister emphasise the importance of honour as a key characteristic of board members. I think it is really important that procedures to deal with conflicts of interest are established. That view is shared by the Chair of the Liaison Committee, who has said
“After the dust settles over the Greensill affair, I suspect that we will find that the lack of judgment over David Cameron’s approaches to ministers is less important than the general failure to address what has become a casual approach to conflicts of interests amongst many in government and in politics…All can see now the general inability of the various codes and systems”—
to the points made—
“of oversight, such as the toothless advisory committee on business appointments, to provide sufficient transparency and accountability, which is why even its chair, Lord Pickles, wants reform.”
When the Chair of Liaison Committee, who is much respected on the Government Benches, says that, and when we are mired in scandals as a consequence of a lack of appropriate conduct and clear processes and procedures, I urge the Minister to accept the need at the very least for greater detail when it comes to avoidance of conflicts of interest. I urge her to accept the amendment to establish processes and procedures to avoid conflicts of interest in this new body, which is critical to our future economic and scientific prosperity.
Daniel Zeichner
It is a pleasure to be part of a Committee that you are chairing, Mrs Cummins. I fully endorse what my hon. Friend has said about the amendment. In fact, she has pretty much said it all, but there are one or two points that I want to add.
We are considering a profound set of issues. The evidence sessions showed some fundamental differences in culture between our country and the Americans, and it is their example on which we are largely modelling our initiative. To some extent it goes to the problem that we are facing as a country at the moment. For a long time, we rather considered ourselves not to be prey to such conflicts; we had a British way of doing it. Procedures were not necessarily written down, but there were understandings and people behaved properly. The sad truth is that over the past 20 to 30 years, somewhere that changed. That is the truth, and that is why we are in the current situation.
In the evidence session with the Americans, I was very struck at one point when we were pressing them on how they avoided conflicts of interest. Their response was a kind of American swelling of patriotic pride, as they said that they would not do that because it would somehow harm the American dream. [Interruption.] Exactly. People in Britain are different; it is not that we are not proud of our country or patriotic, but I would say that our patriotism is different from theirs.
Chi Onwurah
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Perhaps the fact that DARPA is part of the US defence establishment, with all the military honour and commitment to the defence of the nation, is one of the reasons why honour was held so high by the Americans. Does he agree that the absence of any mission and any departmental ownership of ARIA means that will not be the case in the UK?
Daniel Zeichner
My hon. Friend has touched on a very important point. It was something that I tried to draw out in some of the evidence sessions. I would point Members to an excellent book written a few years ago by Lord Sainsbury, an esteemed former science Minister. He talked about the differences in culture between Europe, America and the UK, and warned against just trying to transpose one system to another, unless one really understood the cultural context. We have not mentioned it so far today, as it has very much been about natural sciences and perhaps, mea culpa, engineering at the beginning, but the social sciences may be biggest challenge of all. That was touched on at one point in the evidence sessions when one of the witnesses said it is not just a matter of the technologies, but public acceptance and understanding of them. It will require some really innovative work from social scientists to understand how that will work.
Amanda Solloway
On amendment 13, the framework document to be agreed between the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and ARIA, which will complement the Bill, will commit ARIA to the code of conduct for board members of public bodies, which sets out the personal and professional standards expected from board members, and forms part of individual members’ terms and conditions of appointment.
The code of conduct includes, for example, the obligation to declare publicly any private financial or non-financial interests that may, or may be perceived to, conflict with one’s public duty. I believe that that principle-led, non-legislative approach is appropriate. Indeed, it is the standard approach taken by many other arm’s length Government bodies, including UKRI. That approach allows ARIA to manage conflict of interest risks in a flexible way that is best suited to its operations.
I agree wholeheartedly with what Dr Peter Highnam said last week about what we should be looking for in the CEO to build the right ARIA culture:
“Honour in public service is top of the list.”––[Official Report, Advanced Research and Invention Agency Public Bill Committee, 14 April 2021; c. 39, Q32.]
We will instil that sentiment in ARIA from the outset, starting with the recruitment of the chair and the CEO. We also have an additional assurance, in that the Bill includes a reserved power to introduce additional procedure, in law, should that be necessary once ARIA is operational. I believe that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central should take great comfort in the reserved power set out in paragraph 11, and I ask her to withdraw the amendment.
Chi Onwurah
I thank the Minister for her response. I take most comfort from her unequivocal statement that honour in public service is a key characteristic that will be looked for in the chief executive officer of ARIA, because I had not heard such a strong statement about the need for honour, or even for public service, in ARIA’s mission. I take more comfort from that than from the confirmation that ARIA board members will be subject to existing rules about conflicts of interest. As we have heard, those rules are not sufficient. For example, in one of the recent scandals it was found that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care owned shares in a company that had received a significant contract from his Department, and there were questions about whether the requirements for declarations of public interest had been met.
We in the Opposition have said a number of times that ARIA is an organisation that will necessarily give rise to important conflicts of interest, so it needs more detailed procedures and processes. I do not want to detain the Committee, however, and I hope that the Minister will look at the issue in the future. I will not push the matter to a vote, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Chi Onwurah
I beg to move amendment 14, in schedule 1, page 10, line 5, at end insert—
“(3) The report shall contain information regarding—
(a) the proportion of ARIA’s funding in the relevant financial year which has financed activities taking place (in whole or in part) outside the United Kingdom, and
(b) the national and regional distribution of activities in the United Kingdom supported by ARIA’s funding in the relevant financial year.”
This amendment would require ARIA’s annual report to contain details of the geographical distribution of activities funded by ARIA.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 30, in schedule 1, page 10, line 5, at end insert—
“(3) This report must include statistics regarding the percentage of its funding disbursed in each region of the UK.”
This amendment is intended to provide greater transparency about the destination of ARIA’s funding disbursements within the UK.
Amendment 16, in clause 2, page 2, line 10, leave out “in” and insert “across”.
This amendment would require ARIA to have regard for the benefits of its activities across the nations and regions of the UK in exercising its functions.
Amendment 17, in clause 2, page 2, line 12, leave out “in” and insert “across”.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 16.
Amendment 18, in clause 2, page 2, line 14, leave out the first “in” and insert “across”.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 16.
Chi Onwurah
These amendments are all concerned with ensuring that the benefits of ARIA are spread across our country and contribute to a more equal and prosperous country. Amendment 14 would insert a new sub-paragraph requiring ARIA’s annual report, for which there is provision elsewhere, to contain details of the geographical distribution of activities funded by ARIA, while amendments 16, 17 and 18, which relate to clause 2, would require ARIA to have regard for the benefits of its activities across the nations and regions of the UK in exercising its functions.
We tabled these amendments in a constructive spirit, to improve the Bill in line with the Government’s own aims, as we understand them. During and since the general election, there has been significant discussion about the importance of ensuring that our whole country benefits from economic prosperity and from the transformational impact of ARIA.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
I accept what the hon. Lady says about geographical spread and making sure that we are treating the country fairly and levelling up, but we have to accept that while £800 million over a four-year period is a lot, £200 million a year is not a huge amount. We know that we are focusing ARIA on a small number of projects. The danger is that we dilute the impact that ARIA could have using that money by trying to demonstrate that we are spreading it equally across the country. The danger with that is that we do not achieve what we set out to achieve in the first place.
Chi Onwurah
There are two challenges here. ARIA’s funding is between 1% and 2% of the UK’s science spend, depending on whether the aims of the current Government are actually met, so in some respects it is considered too small to be subject to reporting requirements. Yet we also hear of how it is expected—indeed, required—to have a transformational impact on all our lives. If that impact is going to be transformational, surely it is critical that it should be as equitable as possible.
We have tried very hard to reflect those slightly conflicting aims. Amendment 14 is a reporting requirement; amendments 16, 17 and 18 are to “have regard to”. We have not set targets. We have not said that it has to be a certain proportion, but particularly with regard to amendment 14 there can surely be no objection to reporting how the funding has been spent. That is a basic requirement of transparency.
The hon. Member is right to infer that people may draw conclusions from that reporting, but I tend to feel that information is empowering, regardless of what the conclusions are, so the amendment takes a reasonable line between requiring that the spend be in some respects regionally distributed, which it does not do, and ensuring that the information is there to assess the extent to which ARIA is living up to its overriding goal—again, we do not have a mission, so let us say goal—of transforming our society.
The Opposition believe that that goal is possible. We believe that science and research, as I have said, can be the engines of progress for our society, but it needs to be for and by everyone, not simply for the few. It is essential, as I have said, that each region of the UK benefits from the creation of ARIA. The Secretary of State told the Science and Technology Committee that the Government wanted ARIA
“to reflect the wide talent and geographical spread of the United Kingdom”,
but there is nothing in the Bill to measure the extent to which it does that. As we have seen, the Bill fails to mention the devolved nations and does not outline any reflection of the geographical realities of the United Kingdom.
Amendment 14 is simply about requiring reporting so that the Government—whichever Government we have—can measure the impact that ARIA is having on the very important desire to reduce the regional inequalities in our country. It does not tie the hands of ARIA’s leadership; it just imposes reporting requirements. That is really important when we reflect that the Campaign for Science and Engineering found that for every £1 invested by the Government on research and development we receive 20p to 30p back each and every year. Surely we have a right to know where that money is going geographically, as well as which areas it is going to.
As a northern MP, I know that the north receives less than half of the life sciences investment per head that the south of England does, despite having great teaching hospitals and significant health inequalities that truly need to be transformed. We heard an important contribution from Tabitha Goldstaub of CognitionX, who said that
“ARIA has to be independent, but it also needs to ensure that it works really closely with central Government and with regional and local government. Local government spends about £1 billion on procurement, and cities are key investors in infrastructure, so finding a good link with local government, as well as with central Government, is important…Regional strengths deliver benefits to actual localities.”––[Official Report, Advanced Research and Invention Public Bill Committee, 14 April 2021; c. 56, Q54.]
We also heard from John Kingman, the chair of UKRI, that its structures involve regular consultation with the devolved Administrations. It is important that we see how well ARIA is able to benefit also from that engagement, whether indirectly through the UKRI or through its competitions and other means of funding.
Daniel Zeichner
I feel passionately about this issue because I represent a part of the country that often comes in for criticism, in the sense that some people, even some of my colleagues, say to me, “You’ve already got everything—you shouldn’t be getting any more.” This is a complex argument. If some areas have a long tradition of doing well and competing internationally, we can hardly deny them the resources to carry on with their work. However, we are painfully aware that there is a danger of overheating in some parts of the country.
I chair the all-party parliamentary group for the UK’s innovation corridor, which is, essentially, London-Stanstead-Cambridge, and there is much discussion at the moment about the Cambridge-Milton Keynes-Oxford arc—the so-called golden triangle. The discussion seems to have been going on for years and years—certainly for as long as I have been in this place, and long before that. There is this hope that through the clustering effects we can do much better than we already do, and we look to examples in other parts of the world to see how it is done.
The reason I support this amendment is that this is not simple or easy. There have been many attempts to spread the Cambridge cluster effect. In fact, ironically, it often seems to cluster more and more in particular bits of Cambridge. It is very hard to get people to go to other places, but that is what we want to try to encourage. One of the ways in which we will do that is by having the data and the information. This is a great opportunity for ARIA to be mindful of that in its report. It is not a difficult thing to do. It should tell people what is going on and where it is putting its resources. If it is not working in the first few years, that would give us the opportunity to intervene and make a change.
Chi Onwurah
Once again, my hon. Friend has reminded me in his excellent contribution of an important point that I should have made, which was that the regional development agencies, abolished by the Conservative coalition in 2010, did report on regional innovation and science spend. Whenever I speak to the North East England chamber of commerce, I am told that one of the difficulties in making the knowledge exchange framework accessible or understandable is the lack of data on regional science spend. Part of the point of this amendment is to help restore some of that data.
Daniel Zeichner
That is absolutely right. One of the many tragedies of the last 10 or 15 years has been the fact that strong attempts by the last Labour Government to have a positive regional policy were swept away. Vince Cable, I think, described the destruction of the regional structures in 2010 as positively Maoist. Astonishingly, Lord Heseltine later came to Cambridge to bang the drum for regionalism outside the very offices that had been shut by his own Government a few months earlier.
We do not have a good record on regional policy in this country. We need to do better in future, for everybody’s benefit. Frankly, my city can do without the overheated house prices and the problems that come with everything being clustered in one place. It would be good for us, but also for everybody else, to get more balanced economic growth across the country.
We could do one small thing today—and I really do not see how it would be difficult for the Government to concede. I do not know how many Bill Committees I have been on—I have never yet had any success, although I live in hope. I make this plea, however, because I really do not see how the concession could be that painful.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
I rise, obviously, to speak in favour of SNP amendment 30, which almost ties in with what is proposed by the shadow Minister. It is about providing greater transparency on the destination of ARIA’s funding disbursements within the UK.
I just want to pick up on a couple of things that have been said already. The shadow Minister reflected on the fact that the Bill makes no mention of the devolved nations. She almost seemed surprised, but that took me a bit aback because I am not surprised at that in any way, shape or form. I do not think anyone even on the Government Benches is over-surprised that they forgot to mention Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock mentioned his concerns about drawing conclusions. Yeah, I will be drawing conclusions about where that money goes and I am sure that every single person in Scotland will.
Stephen Metcalfe
If we were discussing how the Government aim to spend our £22 billion a year on science and research, there would be a much better argument for the amendment. But we are talking about high-risk, high-reward science, where a focus on a particular technology has the transformational effect that we are after. That might be the University of Strathclyde and its quantum technology research—I have no objection to that being the area of funding. But if the area happens to be Cornwall, Cambridge, London or somewhere else, I do not think we should hamper ourselves on this particular aspect of a new agency by trying to set targets. We know that if we set a target, someone tries to meet it.
Stephen Flynn
I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, although I would caution that, when speaking to an MP from Aberdeen, people do not tend to mention a Glasgow university—it doesn’t go down too well, that’s for sure.
I understand the purpose of the hon. Gentleman’s point, but he must understand our concerns about making sure that Scotland receives its fair share of funding and investment from the UK Government while we remain a part of the United Kingdom. That ties into the wider narrative from this UK Government since the 2019 election. The views and will of the people of Scotland have been completely disregarded.
What we are seeing from the UK Government are attempts to impose their will on Scotland. We saw that with clause 46 of the Internal Market Bill and with the levelling-up fund that bypasses devolution but does not deliver for the communities in Scotland that it is needed for. This fits into our wider concern about the direction of funding from the UK Government.
As I said earlier, £800 million is involved. While Scotland is still a part of the UK we will take an interest and argue Scotland’s case for getting that funding into Scotland. It should, of course, be at the Barnett level. I would welcome assurances from the Minister that we will see investment in Scotland—not necessarily in Glasgow or at the University of Strathclyde, but perhaps in Aberdeen: that would be much more beneficial. I hope that we will see that level of investment in Scotland and I hope that she will provide that commitment, in which case I will be able to withdraw my amendment.
Kirsty Blackman
Does my colleague agree that what we saw happening in relation to Northern Ireland—the money funnelled there and the fact that we did not get our Barnett amount of that cash—increases our worry about the fact that we might not see the Barnett amount for ARIA either?
Stephen Flynn
Absolutely; my colleague is spot on. As I said, this is not new, and the example she has provided is another clear indication of this UK Government’s failure to take cognisance of Scotland’s needs. If the Minister wishes to stand up and tell me that Scotland will get its fair share and we will get a Barnett sum spent in Scotland, I will be more than happy to withdraw my amendment; otherwise, I will push it to a vote to ensure that Scotland’s needs are met.
Amanda Solloway
I shall turn first to amendments 14 and 30. The objective behind them is really important; we have spoken extensively about the need for ARIA’s funding to reach beyond the usual suspects. In my view, that applies to where that funding goes as much as to the formality of the research setting. That also reflects the wider Government priority. The R&D places strategy, due to be published this summer, represents a key part of our ambitions for R&D and innovation. It builds on the approach set out in the R&D roadmap.
The purpose of the places strategy is to ensure that R&D benefits the economy and society in the nations, regions and local areas across the United Kingdom, contributing to the Government’s wider levelling-up ambitions. I would like to make one key point about ARIA: as discussed previously, many of the details of ARIA’s operation will be set out more fully in a future framework document. I suggest that that document is the appropriate place for stipulations on the content of ARIA’s annual report.
It is extremely likely that ARIA will be required to provide in that report the type of geographical information sought in the amendments, but it would be beneficial to consider that in the round, alongside the other information that we might require ARIA to include in the report. The most appropriate and helpful information for ARIA, or Government bodies generally, to provide may also change in the future. To include specifics on the face of the Bill is impractical in that respect, as that would be inflexible.
On amendments 16, 17 and 18, ARIA will seek transformative scientific and technological breakthroughs, the outputs of which will have benefits across the United Kingdom. For example, a leap forward to driverless technology could create economic benefit to improve the quality of life across the UK. The attraction of the ARPA model is that its funding is laser-focused on achieving transformative outcomes. While £800 million up to 2024-25 is a meaningful amount of funding, it is a small proportion of the R&D spend. For those reasons, I urge the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central to withdraw her amendment.
Chi Onwurah
I thank the Minister for her response. I am pleased to hear that she believes that the information requested in amendment 14 is likely to be included in the reporting requirements of ARIA. On that basis, I am—well, “happy” is not the right word, but I will withdraw amendment 14. I do so also on the basis that she understands its importance.
I feel, however, that in her response to amendments 16, 17 and 18, the Minister has had it both ways: she is saying that the benefits will be felt across the nation but that a requirement to have regard for the benefits across the nations and regions of the UK is too much. Its borders may move, but the geographical reality of our United Kingdom as a country of nations and regions will, I hope, remain, and so a requirement to have regard to the benefit across the nations and regions seems eminently sensible—indeed, it is a minimal requirement. I would like to press amendment 16 to a vote later, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment 14.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Kirsty Blackman
I beg to move amendment 29, in schedule 1, page 10, line 5, at end insert—
“(3) The report must include—
(a) statistics on the gender balance of—
(i) executive board members
(ii) non-executive board members
(iii) senior staff; and
(b) financial information on the gender pay gap among ARIA employees and appointees.”
This amendment is intended to ensure that this public body may be held accountable for its gender representation.
The Minister just made a helpful comment about the memorandum of understanding that will happen between BEIS and ARIA, but her comment was not quite strong enough for me. She said it was likely to include these things—perhaps very likely. Will the Minister tell us that it will include the geographical disbursement covered in the previous amendment, and the gender balance of the board members and senior staff and the gender pay gap, as covered in amendment 29? If we are asking companies to report on the gender pay gap in their annual reports, as we are and should be doing, it is not out of the question to ask ARIA to do the same.
The measure is particularly important because the Government are absolutely intent on excluding ARIA from freedom of information; if ARIA is excluded from FOI, we are not able to see that information. We will not have the level of scrutiny that we normally have over a public body. We have talked at some length— the shadow Minister spoke at some length—about the importance of gender balance, diversity and having women in senior roles. It is also important that we do not have a gender pay gap within ARIA. We know that the glass ceiling in areas such as engineering is very significant. We want to ensure that women are promoted to all levels within the organisation, that women are paid fairly within it and that we are able to scrutinise the information.
I would really appreciate it if the Minister stood up and said, “Yes, absolutely—we will be negotiating that as part of the MOU.” That would be massively appreciated because it is incredibly important.
Chi Onwurah
I rise briefly to speak in support of the amendment. As the Bill stands, ARIA will not be subject to freedom of information requests. If there is no requirement to report on gender balance and the gender pay gap, will we have any understanding of the way in which ARIA is reflecting the gender diversity that we hope to see in the organisation?
Amanda Solloway
Again, I draw hon. Members’ attention to the existing obligations under the public sector equality duty and the Equality Act 2010, to which ARIA will be subject. Under the public sector equality duty, ARIA must, in carrying out all its functions, have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct; advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it; and foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it.
This is a strong statutory duty that will apply to the recruitment and remuneration of ARIA staff. Should ARIA have 250 employees, there would also be a requirement to publish its gender pay gap information, based on the point at which the data becomes statistically significant and supports a good analysis.
I believe this specific duty is sufficient for ARIA, as indeed it is for all other employers. I do not think that any further provision in the Bill is required and I hope the hon. Member will withdraw the amendment.
Kirsty Blackman
I understand that there are public sector duties in relation to this issue, but ARIA could easily fulfil all those by employing only men—it could just pay them all at whatever level because they would all be men. It would fulfil its duties in that regard because there would be no gender pay gap, but it would be incredibly important for us to know that ARIA had only fulfilled its duties by taking that step, because it is public money that is being spent.
While Scotland is still part of the Union we want to be able to scrutinise how the money is spent. It is important that we have information on whether there is a gender pay gap in ARIA, whether or not it has 250 employees. Again, it is a public sector organisation spending public money but exempt from public procurement regulations and exempt from FOI. That means we are not able to adequately scrutinise the money spent, to ensure that there is diversity and fairness, making sure that women are not only in the lower roles in the organisations, but are starting at or being promoted to higher roles.
What the Minister said was not strong enough for me; I would like for her to have reassured us that the MOU will have that duty written into it. I would like to push the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Amanda Solloway
I welcome the detailed discussion that schedule 1 has attracted. It is to be expected since the schedule sets out ARIA’s governance arrangements, including the make-up of the board and how members and staff are appointed and removed. There are elements of schedule 1 that are standard to most statutory corporations and that mirror the measures on UKRI in the Higher Education and Research Act 2017. Those include the paragraphs about ARIA determining its own procedures, the delegation of functions by ARIA, and the preparation and laying before Parliament of audited accounts and annual reports.
I reiterate that ARIA will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny in the same way as other statutory corporations, both by Select Committees, including the Science and Technology Committee—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme and the hon. Member for Brent Central will contribute to that fully—and by the National Audit Office, which is expected to report in detail on ARIA for discussion at the Public Accounts Committee. With reference to this morning’s discussion, it is therefore clearly the case that ARIA will be held to account.
As with the rest of the Bill, in schedule 1 I have been very mindful of the need to strike a balance between providing ARIA with the independence to operate freely and ensuring sufficient Government and parliamentary oversight to protect the use of public funds. I also emphasise that the creation of ARIA has been welcomed by the UK research and innovation community, and I again point to the integrity of that community.
I will explain the rationale behind the key paragraphs that are specific to ARIA and that have not yet been discussed in relation to the amendments proposed to schedule 1, starting with those on membership. Paragraph 2 sets out ARIA’s membership. Its executive members must include the chief executive officer and chief financial officer, and between two and five other members. As we heard from Professor Philip Bond last week, that number reflects the need for ARIA to be a nimble agency, with agile decision-making structures.
ARIA’s non-executive members must include the chair, the Government chief scientific adviser and other members appointed by the Secretary of State. The Government chief scientific adviser will provide technical expertise and a helpful and effective link between ARIA’s activities and those of Government, while limiting any direct interference from Ministers. Non-executive members must comprise the majority of ARIA’s board, which is a matter of good governance.
Paragraph 3 sets out that the first chief executive officer will be appointed by the Secretary of State, ensuring that the initial leadership sets the right foundation for ARIA. Thereafter, executive appointments will be made by the chair, such that ARIA can maintain its independence from Government.
Paragraph 4 sets out that the chief executive officer must be appointed for a fixed term for a maximum of five years, and that a person cannot be appointed as CEO more than twice. That approach will ensure strong leadership, energy and renewal at CEO level, and we have seen that successful approach produce results for DARPA.
As is standard for statutory corporations, paragraph 14 states that ARIA must prepare annual accounts that must be sent to the Secretary of State and the Comptroller and Auditor General. The CAG must examine, certify and report on statements of accounts and send a copy of the report and certified statement to the Secretary of State, who in turn must lay copies before Parliament. As the Committee will be aware, the NAO is also able to conduct value-for-money examinations of ARIA, as per the National Audit Act 1983. The laying of annual accounts and reports before Parliament, combined with the NAO examination represent an opportunity to scrutinise ARIA’s activity and its use of public funds, as is standard for public bodies.
I would like to take this opportunity to address a point raised by the Secretary of State on Second Reading which left some ambiguity. He said that there was a commitment in the Bill to audit ARIA’s procurement activities. Any procurement spending will of course be included in ARIA’s accounts and be subject to audit in the normal way, according to paragraph 14, but we have made a further non-legislative commitment to explore how ARIA’s procurement activities specifically might be audited and reported on as a counterbalance to the exemption that the Bill gives ARIA from obligations on a “contracting authority” under the public contracts regulations. That is not within the Bill, as the Secretary of State’s comment could be taken to imply, but will none the less be an additional commitment to transparency and good governance for ARIA.
Schedule 1 contains provisions where necessary for ARIA to be able to operate as a statutory corporation and it is therefore essential that it remains part of the Bill.
Chi Onwurah
I thank the Minister for her comments on schedule 1. While I necessarily disagree with her assessment that the schedule contains all the checks and balances, accountability and oversight that are required, I will not oppose it.
The National Audit Office audit to which the Minister referred is a very limited safeguard against some aspects of conflict of interest and the misuse of public money, and the wider concerns that we have. It is limited to providing a true and fair opinion about whether the public body’s financial statement is free from material misstatement, whether caused by fraud or error, and therefore does not address our concerns about accountability. The National Audit Office conducts 400 such audits annually and it would not necessarily prevent the mismanagement of public funds in ARIA or other bodies. I hope that the Minister will reflect on the importance of improving accountability as the Bill proceeds.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 1 accordingly agreed to.
Clause 2
ARIA’s functions
Chi Onwurah
I beg to move amendment 15, in clause 2, page 1, line 7, at end insert—
“(1) In exercising its functions, ARIA must have regard to its core mission.
(2) In this section, ‘core mission’ means—
(a) for the period of ten years after the date on which this Act is passed, undertaking activities which support the achievement of the target established in section 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008;
(b) thereafter, that mission or missions which the Secretary of State establishes by regulations every five years.
(c) regulations under this section—
(i) shall be made by statutory instrument, and
(ii) may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.”
This amendment would require ARIA to consider its core mission in exercising its functions. For the ten years following the Act passing, that core mission would be undertaking activities to support the achievement of net zero. Thereafter, its mission will be established by statutory instrument subject to the draft affirmative procedure.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 35, in clause 2, page 1, line 8, at end insert—
“(A1) ARIA’s primary mission will be to support the development of technologies and research that support the UK’s transition to net zero carbon emissions or reduce the harmful effects of climate change.”.
This amendment sets the primary mission for ARIA to support the development of technologies and research that support the UK’s transition to net zero carbon emissions or reduce the harmful effects of climate change.
Chi Onwurah
It has been a long day and we have had lively debates covering many important themes set out in this admittedly short Bill. We now come to one of the critical themes: the mission of ARIA. What is ARIA for?
Amendment 15 would require ARIA to consider its core mission in exercising its functions. Under the amendment, for the 10 years following the passing of the Act, that core mission would be to undertake activities to support the achievement of net zero. Thereafter, its mission would be established by statutory instrument, subject to the draft affirmative procedure.
I am surprised that I find myself in the position of needing to argue that ARIA—the Advanced Research and Invention Agency—requires a mission and that that mission should be net zero, which is the greatest existential challenge facing our country and the world right now.
We welcome ARIA, as we have said. We recognise that there is a gap in the UK’s research capability, which ARIA can and should fill, but we believe strongly that ARIA will succeed only if it is given a well-defined mission, which the Government must play a significant role in setting. As we heard in the evidence sessions—and as is, I believe, the opinion of the Minister—ARIA should not try to replace either blue skies research institutions or translational institutions, but should bring the two together to focus on the transformative effects that science and technology can have on society. I am sure that we are all united in the view that ARIA can have a transformative impact.
This is an opportunity for the Government to establish a mission-led funding agency that can benefit us all. With no mission and the whole of the realm of science—the whole of the unknown and the less understood—to choose from, the risk is that ARIA will be directionless, providing no societal return for taxpayer investment, or that it will be prey to vanity projects, providing return only for a few.
In evidence to the Science and Technology Committee, Dominic Cummings—I am mentioning him once again as the original inspiration and architect of ARIA—held up some sort of a diagram and said that general UK research was one bit and that ARIA should look at all the rest. That gave the impression that it would be like the SS Enterprise going off in search of new areas, but even the SS Enterprise—I know that “Star Trek” fans are present—had a mission, which was to seek out new civilisations. It was not a mission to—
Chi Onwurah
I am speaking about “Star Trek”, so let me finish my point and then I will give way. It was not a general mission to go around the universe and galaxies. It was not a mission to look at mining new minerals or whatever. It was a mission to seek out new civilisations, yet here we have ARIA being proposed as an agency without any mission whatever.
Stephen Metcalfe
Just to clarify, I think it was the USS Enterprise. I believe that ARIA has a mission, which is to boldly go to areas of science that we have not gone into before. A focus on impact, high risk and high reward is not what we currently have, and we should not hamper it at this early stage. I would not for one moment deny that climate change is a huge threat that needs to be addressed, but that is not necessarily where the agency should focus. Why would we want to tie its hands before it has even started to look at the transformational science out there?
I also have great concerns, because the hon. Lady said she felt that the Government should have huge input into the mission of ARIA. That would potentially breach the Haldane principle, which Government after Government have applied and stuck to in order to make sure that politicians are not influencing scientists in what areas that they research.
Chi Onwurah
I accept that it is indeed the USS Enterprise, and I thank the hon. Member for that correction. On the rest of his contribution, I will say once again that I have a great deal of respect for the hon. Member, but to boldly go where no one has gone before is not a mission. It is not even a direction—it is explicitly not a direction. As I said, the USS Enterprise’s mission was to seek out new civilisations, so it was anthropological rather than another domain of science. ARIA has no mission.
We do think we have to talk about the Haldane principle, given that we have seen the acceptance of mission-oriented research, including the grand challenges that were discussed during the evidence sessions. That makes it clear that we can ascribe a mission to ARIA without breaching the Haldane principle. The Government should not outsource their responsibility to direct the transformative change that ARIA can bring to our greatest challenge, which is one that—the hon. Member is familiar with this—inspires so many young people and that can get public buy-in: climate change and the need to address the impact it will have on our planet.
Dawn Butler
Should we not be proud as a Committee to say that ARIA will achieve net zero in whatever project it pursues? That is essentially working on the edge of the edge—looking at forward technology, ensuring that we save the planet and ensuring that we do not add to the erosion of the ozone layer—so is it not progressive and transformative to set a parameter around net zero?
Chi Onwurah
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend; I think that it is progressive, transformative and very necessary. We heard today that the Prime Minister has decided to set another target for our emissions—I think that it is to slash UK emissions by 78% by 2035—undaunted by the fact that he has not met any of the targets that he has set previously.
This issue is not about setting targets; it is about changing the way in which our economy and our society work, to reduce our emissions. Just think of the role that ARIA could play in that process. My hon. Friend suggested that achieving net zero is not a narrow mission; it is a broad mission, because net zero impacts every aspect of our life. An ARIA CEO would have plenty of discretion in choosing which aspects of the climate and environmental emergency to address.
Aaron Bell
That is potentially a worthy mission, but the point is that the hon. Lady said there is no direction. Well, going boldly is going to the frontier—even “The Final Frontier”, if we go to “Star Trek V”. [Laughter.] The edge of the edge is not in one direction. The edge is a circle, or even a sphere—all the areas that we do not know about. Trying to focus on one narrow point, as she is doing with the amendment, misses the point of ARIA and the potential for its transformative effect across a wide range of disciplines and lots of areas of science, technology, engineering and, indeed, perhaps even mathematics.
Chi Onwurah
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that contribution. Envisaging the edge of the edge, whether it is a circle or an ellipse—whatever it is, it is obviously broad. It is too broad. I think it could be anything. I think this Committee believes that ARIA must have a transformative impact on society, otherwise why are we here? The area where we need a transformative change is in climate change, which is a hugely broad area.
The UK, under this Government, is off track to meet current targets. The Government have no ambitious green recovery plan, they have axed the vital housing retrofit scheme and they have cut subsidies for electric vehicles. They are desperately in need of focusing our activities on the impact of climate change.
We know that two of the great challenges in reducing our emissions are transport and the existing housing stock. Think what impact an inspired programme director in ARIA could have on that great challenge of effectively insulating and reducing the emissions from our 20 million or so homes, or ensuring that transport, which the Government have said will be included in their emissions targets, is green. That is not a narrow mission. Net zero is not a narrow mission; it is as broad and as big as our planet, and it is certainly where we desperately need to focus our attention.
In response to the point about the Government choosing the mission, I would say that only the Government have the democratic mandate—they won the election—to choose the mission, while allowing ARIA’s leadership the operational independence to implement that mission. It is critical that the mission reflects public concerns, to establish buy-in as well as the tolerance for failure. Without a clear mandate from the Secretary of State, ARIA’s leadership will be put in the unenviable position of having to decide which Government Departments and policies to prioritise, and who will have the ear of the ARIA CEO. I say again that the Government cannot outsource this responsibility as they have chosen to outsource so many other responsibilities.
We are at the beginning of the decisive decade, in which the world must avert the worst impacts of climate change, and ARIA could provide much-needed research to help advance the solutions that are necessary to decarbonise our economy rapidly and fairly. In addition, this year the UK will host the critical COP26 UN climate summit. Would it not be a fantastic message to say that our leading high-risk, high-reward agency is focused on climate change? Would it not provide a model for other countries to follow?
Daniel Zeichner
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend, who has made a strong case. This issue goes to the heart of the discussion we have been having all day and goes back to some of the comments I made in my opening remarks.
We were castigated earlier for talking too much about Mr Cummings. I say that we must cast off the curse of Cummings. I thought the Government had moved on—they got rid of him—but the Bill still has all his hallmarks. The chaos and confusion that he espouses—his raison d’être—will make this agency fail. That is the problem. I encourage the Government to move past it. The evidence from the witnesses all the way through was about the confusion. I understand Marina Mazzucato is advising the Government. She made it ever so clear that ARIA will only work if there is a clear mission. The Americans made it absolutely clear that if we want to do something like they have, that is the way to do it.
The Government seem to be completely confused about whether they want to learn from examples elsewhere, or do something very different—although they are offering no evidence as to why that should work; sadly, we have seen examples in the past of attempts to do this kind of thing that have not worked. If we are going to learn from the examples elsewhere, surely we have to listen to the people who know how they work. I am at a loss to understand why the Government are not listening to the advice.
The first point to make about the amendment is whether to have a mission or not. Do we do it in the way that might work? It is clear that we have to. The second point, which follows, is that if we are to choose something, what should we choose? Witnesses pointed out that there a number of choices. Unsurprisingly, climate change came up on a number of occasions, as it is obvious we should seek to address it. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central has made all the points on that.
We have an extraordinary situation in that we have COP26 coming up in a few months. Would it not be wonderful if we had this new agency established to address those huge challenges? I fear we are not going to have it, though. We might have the agency and someone sitting around scratching their head saying, “What shall we do today?” when it is entirely obvious what they should be doing.
As I said earlier, we could have some social science challenges. A big one is: how is an advanced country like ours not able to lag a few lofts? We have had 10 years of failure in these schemes, with one scheme under the coalition, and the latest scheme from the Government collapsing a few months ago. It is extraordinary when we know that one of the biggest problems is the state of our housing stock, yet we cannot seem to find a way to run a scheme to improve it. That challenge would fall very much within the scope of our amendment. We want this to succeed.
Finally, I cannot help but refer to the extraordinary document that Dominic Cummings waved at the Committee. I could not see it on the TV screens, so I went and printed it off. I will hold it up. I do not know if anyone has seen it, but this is primary school standard. I want to put in a word for taxi drivers, actually, because what was said earlier was slightly unfair. I am quite happy that taxi drivers are scrutinised—and members of the ARIA board. I also do not want to be in any way disrespectful to primary schools, but really? Do not place the future of the agency in the hands of the legacy of Dominic Cummings.
Aaron Bell
I just wanted to say that that document has been entered into evidence and is available on the Science and Technology Committee website.
Daniel Zeichner
And I am eternally grateful, because that is where I found it. I must say that I was still surprised, because it looks to me more like something that came out of “Star Trek” many years ago.
Stephen Flynn
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cambridge. I am not quite sure whether lagging roofs is necessarily within the remit of what I would expect ARIA to be doing. I like to think that the Government could do that notwithstanding any new technologies, but I appreciate the point he was making. I assure members of the Committee that there will be no “Star Trek” references coming from my mouth whatsoever—[Interruption.] Or “Star Wars”. We have had quite enough of that. I rise to speak in support of amendment 35, tabled by the SNP, which again is directly related to climate change and the drive towards net zero.
If ARIA is to have a mission—I think it should, and the majority of witnesses last week seemed to be in favour of that—there can be only one focus. I understand the premise of the Government’s not wanting ARIA to be constrained. I think the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock said that he did not want to hamper ARIA, but I disagree, and I think it is an honest disagreement to have. I do not see how instructing an agency to try to combat climate change and allow us to meet our net zero aims is hampering it. I think that provides not only the focus that the agency needs but the focus that we should all want it to have, because it is the biggest existential crisis facing us.
Stephen Metcalfe
I do not deny that climate change is the biggest issue that we need to address, but a huge amount of research is already going on in that area across UKRI and its £8.8 billion-plus budget. To focus all £200 million a year for ARIA on climate change could miss the point of what we are trying to set up. To me—it may just be me—it is blindingly clear what the mission is: to find areas of research for which funding currently cannot be accessed because it is too risky, and fund that. We talk about high risk, high reward, and that is the mission: to find science that is worthy of research but cannot get funding or support now. If we do that, we might find the next global positioning system, the next computed axial tomography scanner or the next hadron collider—something really inspirational and transformational.
Stephen Flynn
I certainly understand the hon. Member’s point, and, to his credit, he is persuasive in his arguments. None the less, hon. Members will be unsurprised to hear that he has not quite persuaded me, and I do not think his argument would necessarily persuade the witnesses—the likes of Professor Mazzucato and Professor Wilsdon—from whom we heard last week. It is right that we have this discussion, and it is good that we are having it in a positive and constructive fashion, but ultimately I believe there still should be a mission for ARIA. Without it, we are not doing all that we possibly can. DARPA is the clearest example of why a mission is important in this regard. We spoke about it on Second Reading, and we heard from the horse’s mouth just last week about the importance of the mission to DARPA.
Kirsty Blackman
I just want to add a couple of things. The hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock gave us what he thinks the mission for ARIA is. Unfortunately, everybody I have heard speak has a different idea of what the mission for ARIA is.
I thought the statement of policy intent was really useful in telling us the mechanics of how ARIA will work. It is really useful in saying why it is set up in a particular way, but it does not actually tell us what the point of it is. Reading through the Bill, I realised not just that ARIA does not have a mission, but that it does not have a direction. Is ARIA about funding scientific things that are not otherwise funded? Is it about increasing productivity, which is mentioned too? Is it about economic growth? Is it about improving the lives of people who live in the UK or elsewhere? Is it about solving scientific problems? I do not know which of those things it is about.
Even if the Government are unwilling to accept the amendments that we have tabled—they should accept them, because, as I have explained, £200 million a year on solving climate change is not a bad thing, even though I think we should be spending significantly more than that—they should be clear about the point of ARIA. How are we are measuring performance? How do we know whether it has succeeded? Do we know that it has succeeded if it has spent lots of money? Do we know that it has succeeded if it has funded lots of projects? Do we know that it has succeeded if it has made a difference to the level of productivity within science, research and development in the UK, or to productivity in the UK in general? Is it succeeding if it is coming up with technologies that will improve lives?
We do not know what we are measuring ARIA against, so the Government will presumably—as they do with most things, and as most Governments do—say that ARIA is a success, whatever happens. However, I want to know what criteria it is being measured against, so that we can actually judge it. If it is what the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock suggested—if ARIA is to fund scientific projects on the edge, regardless of whether that is of an ellipse or a circle—that is fine, because then we can judge it against that. However, I am not clear that that is the Government’s intention.
Amanda Solloway
We heard from some incredibly experienced witnesses last week, with much discussion focused on the question of prescribing ARIA a research focus. Inevitably, cases were made both for and against such an approach. The case made for the approach often referred to DARPA and DARPA-like agencies, but I remind the Committee that ARIA is not DARPA, ARPA-E or ARPA-H. Although we have learned some incredibly valuable things from those agencies, my primary consideration as we develop ARIA has been that it is the right approach for the UK’s R&D system.
Professor Dame Ottoline Leyser said to us last week—[Interruption.]
Amanda Solloway
Professor Dame Ottoline Leyser said to us last week:
“The needs of the country—the priorities that the Government and Ministers set to solve particular challenges for the nation—fall very much within the UKRI remit”.––[Official Report, Advanced Research and Invention Agency Public Bill Committee, 14 April 2021; c. 8, Q4.]
Achieving net zero remains one of this Government’s top priorities—demonstrated by the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan—as it is for parties across the House. However, we should continue to successfully mobilise the structures we have in place to respond to the Government’s priorities, including through the industrial strategy challenge fund’s eight clean growth challenges.
We should use ARIA to do something different. Otherwise, I believe we are at risk of causing confusion and duplication of responsibilities. A key difference will be creating a space in the R&D funding system to give autonomy to visionary people. ARIA’s leaders will invite and scrutinise a range of proposals, each of which is defined by a single cohesive and coherent programme objective. That could be a measure towards achieving net zero, or it could be in any other field. ARIA will select the most talented programme managers with the most exceptional idea, and give them the opportunity to discover the next transformational breakthrough.
As we heard in evidence from Nesta and UKRI last week, ARIA is about conducting research in a different way, through new funding mechanisms and giving autonomy to experts. It is not about research in any one field. I agree that is the right approach. It is for that reason that I cannot accept the amendments. I hope the hon. Members will withdraw their amendments. Finally, if ARIA is successful, who knows: we could be saying, “Beam me up, Scotty!”
Chi Onwurah
I thank the Minister for her comments, particularly for that final reference, the spirit of which I wholeheartedly agree with. However, I do not find her arguments against the amendment compelling, and I would like to push it to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Amanda Solloway
Clause 2 sets out ARIA’s functions. As described in the policy statement published on 19 March, ARIA is expected to facilitate a programme manager model. Programme managers lead research programmes designed around highly ambitious scientific or technological visions. Within their overarching programme, programme managers will distribute funding across a range of projects. Individual projects might vary in size, length and scientific discipline, and may be conducted by different institutions or collaborative groups. The projects are not stand-alone, but rather contribute to the overall aims of the programme.
An important feature of clause 2 is ARIA’s power to commission or support others to conduct research, to develop and exploit scientific knowledge, or to collect, share, publish and advance scientific knowledge. While ARIA is expected to perform some research in-house, a significant proportion of its activities are likely to take place externally. For example, programme managers are expected to commission individual research projects from experts across the public and private sectors.
It is vital that ARIA is able to support others contributing to its ambitious programme goals in a flexible way. Subsections (2) and (4) set out the ways in which in exercising its functions ARIA may support others. They should be read in conjunction with supplementary powers, which are set out in paragraph 17 of schedule 1. For example, ARIA may provide financial support through a range of innovative funding mechanisms. That may include making grants, loans and investments in companies or other entities, or any other payment, such as prizes.
A diversity of funding approaches has been integral to the ARPA model’s success in the US—we heard from Dr Peter Highnam—and it will encourage ARIA to experiment even more. However, we will balance experimentation with the need to safeguard public funding. The provision of financial support by ARIA is subject to any conditions that are attached to grant funding given by the Secretary of State to ARIA in clause 4, to which I am sure we will return shortly.
Finally, science is an international endeavour. Accordingly, ARIA will be able to fund, conduct, commission and support research internationally. Sir Adrian Smith and Sir Jim McDonald were clear about the importance of ARIA participating in international research in last week’s evidence session. Clause 2(5) and (6) state that ARIA’s activities are not restricted to the United Kingdom, but in exercising its functions ARIA must have regard to the desirability of doing so for the benefit of the United Kingdom, through economic growth or a benefit promoting scientific innovation and invention, or improving quality of life.
Clause 2 and the functions really get to the heart of the value that ARIA will add to our UK research and development system, and equip it for the exciting role that it will play. I recommend that it stand part of the Bill.
Chi Onwurah
I thank the Minister for her comments. It is clear from this afternoon’s debate that clause 2 does not set out what ARIA will do or achieve, or what its real function will be, but we will not oppose it standing part.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Michael Tomlinson.)
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Elected Women Representatives: Online Abuse
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Ian Paisley (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice in order to support the new hybrid arrangements. Timings of debates have been slightly amended to allow technical arrangements to be made for the next debate. There will be suspensions between debates. I remind Members participating, physically and virtually, that they must arrive for the start of a debate in Westminster Hall and are expected to remain for the entire debate. I must remind Members participating virtually that they are visible at all times, both to one another and to us in the Boothroyd Room. If Members attending virtually have any technical problems, they should email the Westminster Hall Clerks’ email address. Members attending physically should clean their spaces before they use them and before they leave the room. I remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Westminster Hall—although, of course, not when you are speaking. Members attending physically who are in the latter stages of the call list should use the seats in the Public Gallery initially and move on to the horseshoe when seats there become available. Members can speak from the horseshoe only where there are microphones to facilitate Hansard.
It is my pleasure to call Maria Miller to move the motion.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered online abuse of elected women representatives.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. I start by thanking the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate, which was called for by members of the all-party parliamentary group on women in Parliament. It is a great privilege for me to be able to open the debate. May I, in advance, thank hon. Members for their overwhelming support for the debate today? I also thank the organisations that have provided briefings, including the Local Government Association, the Centenary Action Group, the Fawcett Society and Compassion in Politics.
Parliaments are at their best when they are diverse. King’s College London’s global institute for women’s leadership, chaired by Julia Gillard, put it well when it showed the evidence that equal participation of men and women strengthens our democracy. We have made huge progress here: one in three of our Members is now female. Record numbers of women stood for election in 2019, and record numbers were elected to this place. They were inspired to make a difference to their community and their country; inspired not to accept the world as it is but to put themselves forward, despite the barriers that remain, to be here and to be able to change things; and inspired by many of the right hon. and hon. Members taking part in the debate today. Many Members, including in this debate, do not want to accept politics as it is today —a politics in which aggression and abuse are part and parcel of our working day. That is not the democracy that we have signed up for. We want a democracy that relies not on that, but on reasoned debate.
The evidence is also clear that online abuse is not only a factor in preventing women from taking on careers in politics; it is also cutting short the careers of those who stand and are successful in being elected. Members of the APPG on women in Parliament called for this debate because tackling online abuse, particularly when it impacts the freedom of speech of elected Members, needs to be a bigger priority, not only for the Government but for Parliament.
Mr Speaker has done an incredible amount of work to improve the physical security of Members. I very much welcome in particular the statement on 9 March 2021 by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Constitution and Devolution, updating the House on progress on tackling intimidation in public life, but three years on from the original review, we are still waiting for a cohesive plan, with Parliament and Government working together. We need to redouble our efforts in this area, ensuring that we have a comprehensive package of the right laws to tackle online abuse, the right support and awareness of the law that is in place, the right punishments for those who seek to silence democratically elected representatives, and the right support for staff and colleagues who are victims of these dreadful abuses.
Let us be clear about what this abuse looks like. It is not offensive language. It is not strongly held views in political debate. For some colleagues, online abuse is a threat of rape, murder, stalking, or physical violence towards them or their families. At other times it is mass co-ordinated online harassment by groups. Online anonymity means the police can find it difficult to take action swiftly. Above all, online abuse is an attempt to keep women away from contributing to political life. As elected representatives, we condemn those who take that approach, and we need to redouble our efforts to stop them.
I want to be clear: MP or not, there is absolutely no place for any vile abuse online and the law needs to protect everyone better. I look forward to the introduction of the Government’s online harms Bill as soon as possible. Legislation needs to specifically address online abuse, which is designed to bully, intimidate and silence. When it comes to elected representatives, we need to recognise that the impact of that abuse is particularly concerning and unacceptable. In a free and open democracy, no elected representative should ever be intimidated or feel constrained in speaking out on behalf of their constituents, but that, at the moment, is exactly what happens.
This debate is about elected female representatives who endure online abuse disproportionately, but I know that many, including the Local Government Association, are concerned that those from black and minority ethnic backgrounds, members of the LGBT+ community and those with disabilities are also being particularly targeted.
The current police advice is to remove victims’ social media presence, which is completely unacceptable as it prevents candidates from campaigning online and engaging effectively with residents once they are elected. It is clear that action is needed swiftly, well before the next general election, if we are to stop that unacceptable impact on our democracy.
Let us look at the evidence before us. Elected women MPs already report that the levels of online abuse and treatment from the media that they experience would have stopped them putting themselves forward for selection if they had known the extent to which it would affect them and their family lives, according to research from the Fawcett Society, which might help to account for why women’s tenure as Members of Parliament is significantly shorter than that of male Members. Unfortunately, the abuse is not limited to them. Family members, children and often staff members are also subjected to harassment, and it puts women off standing in the first place.
In its Equal Power project, the Fawcett Society found that almost 70% of respondents cited abuse or harassment as a reason for not pursuing a career in politics. The evidence is really clear. Although the rise in abuse impacts all candidates, the increase in hate and abuse towards women over the past three general elections was almost double that experienced by men, according to data from the Constitution Unit at University College London. The University of Sheffield’s research has shown that rising abuse against women MPs has persisted during the pandemic. The role of online media in delivering that abuse is significant.
The Minister will no doubt say that what is illegal offline is illegal online, so the police can and do take action on threats to murder, rape, sexually assault and stalk. There have been many cases of online abuse involving female MPs and many convictions in the past 12 months. There is no definitive figure, however, on the number of reports, the number of cases taken forward, and the number of convictions. If Parliament is to take its equality duties seriously, it should closely monitor that, and commission research on why male and female elected Members are treated so differently on social media to ensure that measures are in place to deal with it.
This is not just a UK problem. In 2016, a study by the Inter-Parliamentary Union found that 82% of women politicians surveyed in 39 countries had experienced some form of psychological violence. Indeed, 44% had received death threats, or threats of rape, beatings or abduction, and 65% had been subject to sexist remarks. In our year of hosting the G7, let us use this opportunity to draw nations together to voice our solidarity with women across the globe by pledging our support for democratically elected women, and to advocate laws and support that stop the abuse worldwide.
Gone are the days when we did not know what to do about online abuse. We know. We need to have clear laws and the Government must not only promptly bring forward the legislation to introduce the new electoral sanction on intimidation, but use the online harms Bill to recognise the harm faced by women and elected representatives when they deal with social media.
Research by the think-tank Compassion in Politics found that more than one in four people is put off posting on social media because of dreadful abuse. We cannot have an open and honest pluralistic political debate online in an atmosphere in which people are scared to speak up. I hope the Government will also look to tackle anonymous social media accounts in the online harms Bill. I support the idea of giving people the opportunity to create verified accounts by supplying a piece of personal identification, and also of having the ability to filter out unverified accounts. Does the Minister agree that we need to change the culture from the police recommendation that victims move offline, and move to social media platforms banning abusers, with sanctions to incentivise social media platforms to act quickly when abuse actually happens?
The House of Commons itself has a role as an entity to play in this issue. Online abuse must be treated as workplace harassment, a safety hazard by the House of Commons authorities, who should provide training and support—not only to MPs but to our constituency staff, who often have to deal with this abuse on a daily basis—so that we can all feel safer, more prepared and better able to protect ourselves. Political parties have a role, particularly when it comes to candidates. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Amanda Milling) has already made significant changes in the support provided by the Conservative party. The House of Commons has a duty to protect our democracy and should routinely collect and analyse data that breaks down why we fail to have a fully representative Parliament, including the impact of online abuse on female MPs.
I want the Government to think about how we fund the programmes to tackle online abuse. According to the Office for National Statistics, the new digital services tax of 2% on tech giants such as Facebook, Google and Twitter raised £29 million in the first month of operation alone. Let us take the polluter pays principle and use the money yielded from that to provide the sort of support against online abuse that women and girls need more generally, but that is also needed to protect democratically elected women both at local and national level.
Sixteen months ago, we celebrated record numbers of women being elected to Parliament and we still celebrate and encourage more women to stand for election. All the main parties agree that a 50:50 Parliament would be a better place, but the facts speak loudly. The Fawcett Society’s Equal Power project found that almost 60% of women surveyed said they were unlikely to stand as an MP and 44% were unlikely to stand as a councillor. Nearly a year on from that, those numbers have risen to 74% and 62%, respectively. This is a worrying state of affairs, particularly when we see that 69% of respondents cited abuse or harassment as the key reason for not pursuing a career in politics. Online abuse is a significant part of that. This is a barrier that has to be lifted, for the strength of our democracy. It is in our power to tackle this. Parliament, Government and parties have to work together to do just that.
Ian Paisley (in the Chair)
Before I call our next speaker, who will be Caroline Nokes—just to give her early warning—Members will have four minutes to speak.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Paisley. I pay tribute to my near neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) for leading this important debate today.
The Women and Equalities Committee has recently launched an inquiry into the cultures underpinning male violence against women and, sadly, I see the online abuse of female parliamentarians as part of that same culture. Trolling might lead somewhere, and the reality is that none of us either in this debate today or in Parliament more widely knows which of our online trolls might turn into a stalker or who, indeed, might in due course turn into somebody who attends our office, our surgery, our home and threatens us physically. This week’s troll could be next week’s attacker. While I will always glibly say that the solution to the online abuse that we receive as female parliamentarians is simply to use the block and the mute button, the reality is that we cannot do that in every case and, in so doing, we might miss the person who is a physical threat to us .
I was pleased to hear my right hon. Friend talk about diversity, but I regret that she stopped short at one point. We know that female parliamentarians are more abused than their male counterparts, but we also know that black female MPs receive the most abuse of all, and that the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) receives more abuse than every other parliamentarian put together. That is a stark reminder that there is still in our country an undercurrent of misogyny and racism. We also know—my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke was right to point it out—that those who have disabilities and are LGBTQ also face more abuse. We have to stamp out these awful discriminatory, bullying, harassing tactics for good.
I do not pretend that the block and the mute button are the solution—they are not. They may be part of it on an individual level, but we need effective legislation. I am pleased to see the Minister in her place, but I have grave concerns that the online harms Bill will not do the job. We know that it aims to crack down on the illegal, which is good, and prevent young people from accessing harmful content on the internet, but we will have to be explicit about what we are trying to achieve when it comes to stopping the abuse that we all receive on a daily basis.
There is real merit in stamping out anonymity. I think that is one of the massive challenges that we face. People are emboldened when they can hide their true identity. We know they are also emboldened when they are behind a screen. While I do not wish today’s debate to turn into a whinge-fest of who has the worst story, the thing that struck me about two of my most prolific online abusers was that the day I met them in the street, they stared at the pavement and shuffled past. Of course, that is what we know about bullies—at heart, they are also cowards. If they cannot hide behind anonymity, it will stamp out their cowardice because they will have to reveal who they are and I do not believe they are brave enough to do so.
The problem exists across the globe. I remember meeting female parliamentarians from Jordan who experienced exactly the same as we do in the UK. We have to learn from what is being done internationally and work as a global community to stand up for our democracy. We have to stand up for those women who are brave enough to enter public life, but make sure that the legislation is there to protect them and keep them safe from this sort of abuse.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. I applaud the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) for introducing this debate and once again drawing attention to this important matter. I know she has spoken and written extensively on this subject and we are all grateful for that.
While the debate is focused on elected representatives, perhaps we should again recognise that women across public life are being bombarded by abuse on a daily basis, whether they are journalists, police officers or politicians. On International Women’s Day when speaking about cracking the various glass ceilings, my party leader and First Minister of Northern Ireland, Arlene Foster, said:
“The biggest obstacle to being a woman in public life today is the constant stream of commentary on your appearance, the hourly trolling, and monthly idiot who makes a ‘this is what I’d like to do to you today’ threat. … What concerns me more is the growing evidence of online lynch mobs controlled by dark forces who are unleashed on female public figures like a pack of lions to do as much damage as they can to the public figure and the cause that they represent.”
Such lynch mobs exist to spread misinformation and destabilise their opponents. Their existence is to be condemned, and those who sponsor the mass trolling of women in public office must be exposed and condemned.
Such mobs are able to exist only because social media platforms permit anonymous accounts. I join others in calling for verified accounts, whereby users can interact incognito if they need to, but the platform knows their true identity. Although we have redress through defamation actions in Northern Ireland, we must first identify the troll. Then it is slow and very costly, and the threshold for success is high.
Finally, online abuse directed at females is serious, because in my experience it is like an addiction. The addict needs a monthly fix, then a weekly fix, and eventually an hourly fix. Sadly, as the abuse gets more regular, it also gets more poisonous. We need to send a stern message to those poisoning the public space that they cannot abuse with impunity.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) for securing this really important debate.
How free do we think online speech is at the moment, when posting something on Twitter results in comments such as:
“I’ll beat you like a ginger stepchild”
or
“I hope that you have the worst Christmas, you Tory-supporting”—effing—“freak”?
Those are the experiences of my friend Charlotte, who is standing for the council. How often has a woman not posted a thought or view because they cannot be bothered to, or cannot, deal with the fallout? And what greater impediment to their freedoms than dealing with rape threats and death threats, just because they either want a job or have a job?
When Annabel Tall stood in Bath, she received trolling about her son. They said that he looked like he was in the Hitler Youth. Another candidate, standing for the first time in May this year, describes the posts she receives as “eye-wateringly cruel”. She removed herself from Twitter. She is a strong and fantastic military veteran. She is exactly what we need in our local authorities, and exactly what we hope to have in Parliament in the future, if she continues.
Nothing naffs me off more than seeing people with #BeKind or #MentalHealthMatters in their titles who then go on to give people the worst, most vicious attacks just because they do not agree or they are feeling morally superior on that particular day. It absolutely has to stop. People are not applying for these jobs. We heard the figures from my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke. We have to get those women into Parliament and into our local authorities.
Whenever I visit schools in my constituency, I leave so inspired. The young women from Stroud High, Thomas Keble, Rednock, Maidenhill and Marling—they are fabulous. It is not just because all of us here know that, in local authorities and in Parliament, we can make real changes to our communities and our country; it is because those women are already campaigners. They are already leading the way on so many important issues. They teach me things and they inspire. It is no longer that we want them here; we need their voices here and we need them here, so we have to make changes.
I am very supportive of the proposals that many Members have put forward today. To be honest, I think the Government should be looking at everything, and I really applaud what they are doing. The Minister and I have had lots of conversations about this issue and the online harms Bill. While I do not want to see that Bill dressed up like a Christmas tree so that it falls down, because what it is trying to achieve is too important, it can do more.
One area that I have spoken about on a number occasions is anonymity, and I support the previous comments about that. I suggest that we should look at verification. I was very disappointed that there was no meaningful consultation on the impact of anonymous abuse accounts or the options to tackle them in the online harms consultations. That is something that should be rectified, however the simple steps that I suggest would not mean banning anonymous accounts or people losing their sassy username—they can be Princess Whatsherchops if they so want to.
In my view, we should do three things. First, we should give all social media users the option to verify their identity. Secondly, we should make it easy for everyone to see whether or not a user has chosen to verify their identity—we have already done that with Twitter’s blue ticks, so we know it can happen. Finally, we can give users the option to block interaction with unverified users if that is what they want to do.
This is not about blocking, but about choice and the future of our country and our democracy. We need those women in Parliament and in our local authorities, and do not want them to be put off.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) on being a continual champion of women in Parliament and on bringing this extremely important debate to Westminster Hall today.
This debate is timely, of course, because we currently have our elections in the Scottish Parliament, and only recently a survey undertaken by Holyrood magazine found that nine out of 10 female MSPs had feared for their safety. These are absolutely catastrophic figures, and I believe that things are only getting worse, so many fine prospective female candidates are likely to be put off entering public life, as we have heard today.
I would also like to draw the Minister’s attention to the importance of intersectionality in these matters, particularly with religion. Unfortunately, as a practising Christian and an individual with a Jewish family history, I can speak from personal experience regarding this abuse. Personal abuse and attacks often focus not just on my being a woman, but on those very aspects of my being and religion.
Since 2015, I have received numerous death threats online, like many others who have spoken today. Unfortunately, and unacceptably, this has even extended to death threats towards members of my family. After conscience votes, I have openly been targeted for abuse and harassment. In relation to antisemitism, I recently received an email from an individual citing themselves as SS, saying that Jews are witches and calling for extermination of the Jews as a mandate of the United Nations.
However, this does not just happen online, unfortunately. What I want to emphasise—I hope that the Minister can recognise this, because we are working on the online harms Bill collectively in Parliament—is that online abuse is very much a gateway for some individuals, whose behaviour escalates to direct harm. Online abuse has changed our culture and, with the anonymity that has been spoken about, is now almost considered acceptable, because there are no consequences. People continue, become emboldened, and, for a significant proportion of individuals, it is very much a gateway to behaviour that escalates towards direct harm.
For example, I await the sentencing next month of an individual who harassed me and my staff via emails, then acted aggressively in person at my surgery. During the 2019 election, my election leaflets were posted back through my door to me covered in swastikas. In fact, it was being investigated by the police at the same time that the local newspaper editor wished to run a story on where election candidates lived, and I had to raise fears for my family’s safety once again.
Over the last parliamentary term, I have really prioritised my role as vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on religion in the media. I would ask the Minister to look at the excellent report published just last week by the APPG. At its launch, I was also heartened that Alison Phillips, editor of Mirror Group Newspapers—the first female editor of such a large corporate newsgroup—will be taking forward training for journalists on diversity and religious inclusion.
We can agree that today it is horrendous. Being a woman in politics carries a risk of violence, and often direct threat to the woman and her family. It puts too many excellent candidates off. Would I recommend a career in politics to my daughters at this point in time? Not a chance. I do hope, however, that the dire risks are fully addressed and that the Minister can listen to the many poignant experiences of the individuals speaking today and take action, because online abuse is that gateway to actual harm.
Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con) [V]
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) for securing the debate.
Since my election in December 2019, I have seen horrific abuse of colleagues of both genders, but I have been especially disturbed by the nature of the abuse targeted at my female colleagues. We need to separate the standard political online abuse from the sort of messages that are aimed specifically at women, typically involving threats of sexual violence or insults about their physical appearance, or questioning whether they should be in politics at all because they may want to have children or because of their other family circumstances.
Sadly, it is not just in the UK that female representative face such abuse. A quick bit of internet research shows the extent of abuse faced by female colleagues around the world. I spent a thoroughly depressing evening reading all about it in numerous articles from Canada, Kenya, Finland, the USA, India, Chile and Japan—every single country that I could think of. A study by the National University of Ireland in Galway last year found that 96% of female politicians in the Republic of Ireland had faced online abuse. Shockingly, 40% of those interviewed reported being threatened with sexual violence as part of that abuse.
Study after study shows that such abuse puts decent, community-minded people off politics. I speak to those people regularly. If I meet a fantastic community activist, I will ask them why they do not think about standing as a councillor or Member of Parliament. The abuse is raised as one of the main reasons that they do not step forward. I have faced abuse. I am sure that we all have our little mantras that we repeat. In order for someone to upset me I have to respect their opinion, which wipes out a lot of the abuse, but we all have bad days when we are exhausted and it is difficult to brush it off. Sadly, many women leave politics, and cite the abuse that they have received as the reason.
Another result of the abuse is that it makes politicians more distant from the people we represent. Many people are leaving social media platforms. Social media should and could be a brilliant way to keep people informed and engaged with their community, but I fear that without further action we will have less engaged politicians. What more can social media providers do? I do not support a blanket ban on anonymity. Online anonymity is sometimes very valuable, if someone is seeking help for a highly sensitive matter or is a victim of domestic abuse.
However, perhaps we need better tailoring of regulations, filters and the ability to block, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) referred to. That could go with the blue tick. Perhaps people interacting with verified accounts could have a filter button, to turn them on and off. Perhaps lowering the temperature for public figures will improve the internet for all users, because nobody should face the sort of abuse that we all face very regularly.
This debate should send a message from all parties in Parliament to our colleagues around the world and to those involved, and wanting to get involved, in politics. It was lovely that recently the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) was defended from all corners of the House when faced with a horrific episode of abuse. When all of us call abuse out, especially when it is to Opposition colleagues, that sends a powerful message that we will not tolerate it. We can all do our bit to defend our colleagues in every corner of politics.
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairship, Mr Paisley, for the first time. I echo everyone else’s words in thanking the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) for all that she does in this area.
Almost six years ago, on 3 June 2015, Jo Cox, our much-missed colleague, made her maiden speech. She famously said that the thing that
“surprises me time and time again as I travel around the constituency is that we are far more united and have far more in common than that which divides us.”—[Official Report, 3 June 2015; Vol. 596, c. 675.]
I owe a lot to Jo, from a place on the leadership scheme set up in her name following her tragic murder to the courage to attempt to follow in her footsteps just a few months later. The least I can do is remember her words, and I have done so every single day—a phrase to remember before walking into a room or attending an event, which has never failed me, from the times I have talked with Brexit-voting constituents who share my frustration at the reality to meetings with Conservative parish councillors who share my love of the Kent countryside and also want to protect our green spaces. It is not difficult. We all share something and can empathise with others’ stories or their lived experiences.
Against that approach the futility of online abuse is brought into sharp relief. What a moronic and infinitely stupid waste of energy it is for someone to use their precious time to indulge in the equivalent of playground bullying on a keyboard, because they shot to fame on a reality game show or consider themselves an intellectually superior media commentator who is always right. They would be better off challenging themselves to live with Jo’s words ringing in their ears, rather than having the baying roar and constant applause of their echo chamber confirming their absolute correctness over and over again in the gladiatorial arena and narcissistic hall of mirrors that is social media.
In 2015, I met Frances Scott, the founder of 50:50 Parliament, and we became firm friends. I became the first 50:50 ambassador to the electors, as an MP. I have hosted, chaired and spoken at many great events where we ask women to stand for public elected office, but this year, for the first time, I hesitated before accepting a place on a panel. I was not completely sure that I wanted anyone to go through what everyone speaking here today goes through in the form of online abuse every day. I was not sure how honest I could be about what it takes to be bombarded with vitriol, sexism and plain spite. Spite is undoubtedly the driver of many comments not remotely related to political issues—as are basic old-fashioned sexism or racism, even when they are disguised and restyled as factional left-wing politics for the many.
Sexism online tries to close off female mouths, attempts to no-platform us, and quickly resorts to jibes about dumb blondes or skin colour. Online abuse is not simply nasty name calling. It has grown spikes and evolved into self-indulgent wordy blogs written by those who feel compelled to opine, even libellously, on personal aspects of our lives that have nothing at all to do with the work that we carry out daily. At first that may seem too ridiculous to bother with, but when it is shared by blue-tick bully boys and we have to stop our families reading it, it becomes altogether more sinister.
I urge online platforms, political parties and trolls alike to do better, clean up their platforms and membership lists and start to support women in political life, so that the experiences heard about in the debate will be a thing of the past.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) for securing this incredibly important debate.
As we have heard, social media is getting out of hand, and it is intimidating. It was fine when Facebook and Twitter started—just 17 years ago for Facebook and two years later for Twitter. I mention them as they are the most popular platforms, and have been useful for engagement in discussion—but no longer. Like others, I have come off Twitter. There was no point in looking at comments designed to hurt one personally rather than deal with politics.
I know that Twitter brought in measures to help, but I shall not be returning as a public figure for the foreseeable future. I have learned to hide abusive comments on Facebook and will continue to do so until people write in a polite and considerate way. As the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), has said, we would not be that rude in person, so why do it online? We are all open to criticism, and we accept that others do not agree with our view, but there are ways of putting it.
My concern is that what is happening puts people, and especially women, off entering public life. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke has already mentioned, the Fawcett Society sent some figures this week stating that the number of women unlikely to stand as an MP has risen to 74% from 59% in 2019, and in relation to standing as a councillor it has risen to 62% from 44%, with 69% citing abuse or harassment from the public or other parties as a reason for not pursuing a career in politics. That is appalling. If it stays on that trajectory, we will not have any women who want to stand and we will go back to the days of men dominating the corridors of power, just as we were beginning to make inroads with female representation, even if it is only at 34%.
If a woman raises her head above the parapet, it triggers even more abuse, so many of us wonder whether it is worth talking about a controversial topic. That is stultifying discussion, especially given that the diversity of a woman’s perspective is often helpful. The online harms Bill will help, but we need more recognition that online abuse is harassment that is affecting our workplace, our decision making and our wellbeing.
It is not enough to say, “Toughen up. You should expect to be tough as a public person.” I have heard that before. We are tough as politicians, but we are also human beings. Many of us have families whom we want to protect as well as ourselves, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron). It is the responsibility of everyone, not just the Government and social media companies, to call it out and say it is not acceptable. I challenge every single person to confront this unacceptable behaviour, otherwise we will have to put further consequences in place to combat it.
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Paisley. I thank the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) for securing the debate.
When I gave my maiden speech in the House, I made a promise to my constituents that when I saw injustice, I would turn anger into action. What is the point of our being here today if that is not our aim? I do that to the best of my ability. When I do, I often have to advise my staff not to read our emails on a subject, not to check my Twitter mentions and not to take the contents of my postbag to heart. I know that it affects my staff, not just me. We face a sewer of hateful, racist and misogynistic abuse not once in a blue moon or on an individual issue, but regularly. It is normality; it is a fact of life. You get up, you check your phone and you try not to let the hatred get to you.
In research by the Centenary Action Group and the Equal Power campaign, 69% of the women surveyed said that abuse and harassment by the public or other parties was a barrier to pursuing a political career and seeking election. Colleagues have echoed that throughout the debate. In the six weeks before the 2017 general election, Amnesty International found that black and Asian female MPs received 35% more abusive tweets than white women. Online abuse is disproportionately experienced by women from an intersectionality identity. The statistics are alarming and unacceptable. The online harms Bill is a pivotal opportunity to tackle abuse against women and girls. It must include gender-based abuse as a priority harm rather than the categorisation of separate issues.
The Labour Women’s Network, which I have worked on, supports and trains women for public office. Half of our gold standard training programmes now focus on resilience and self-care because online toxicity requires it. LWN’s campaign to defuse abuse against women in public life calls for cross-party action to stem the escalation of misogynistic abuse, especially that aimed at ethnic minority MPs and councillors. We support calls to use 10% of the digital services tax to fund measures to reduce online hate against women and girls and to support the Jo Cox Foundation’s work to improve standards in public life.
I thank organisations such as Glitch, which has been spearheading the campaign against online abuse. It was founded by Seyi Akiwowo, a graduate of the Jo Cox women in leadership scheme. Online abuse has to stop. It is time for action and not anger on this issue. It is time to legislate against the targeted abuse that women have to face. As our sisters have said throughout the history of female political action, it is time for deeds, not words.
Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Paisley. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) on securing this hugely important debate.
While it is an immense privilege, as a feminist I am conscious of what it means to be the first female Member of Parliament for the constituency of Leicester East in my home city of Leicester, and the first black woman elected to represent the entire county of Leicestershire. The 2019 general election had the highest number and proportion of female MPs ever recorded, yet still only 34% of the House is female. I am incredibly proud to be part of that cohort alongside many inspiring colleagues, but we cannot be complacent. We must ensure that women, women of colour and women from disadvantaged and marginalised communities feel empowered to engage in the political system. Only 35% of local councillors in England and Wales are women.
Women face unique, unacceptable challenges in political life. I have faced horrific, violent, misogynistic and racist online abuse throughout my time in Parliament and in politics. That has intensified since becoming an MP to include death threats, trolling, threats of rape and lynching, targeted far-right hate and organised attacks from the worldwide web. My perpetrators hide behind pseudonyms, and it is even more shocking when the mainstream media embolden and give oxygen to the abuse with attacks that ridicule my politics. History tells us that it does not take long for intimidation, bullying, threats and psychological violence to lead to actual physical harm or even death. They want me to be silent, but while I genuinely fear for my safety every day, I refuse to be silenced.
In 2016, a study for the Inter-Parliamentary Union of 39 countries found that 82% of the women politicians surveyed had experienced some form of psychological violence, 44% had received threats of death, rape, lynching or abduction, and 65% had been subjected to sexist remarks.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Diane Abbott) has been crucial in facing down many of the problems facing women in politics since she was elected as the first black woman MP in 1987, and she is a true giant of the feminist and activist movement. We are all indebted to her. The unprecedented level of vile racist and sexist abuse she endured as shadow Home Secretary accounted for half of all online hate directed at female MPs. That shows how much work there is left to do if we are to end the twin evils of racism and misogyny.
An analysis of tweets undertaken by Amnesty International found that in the six weeks prior to the 2017 general election, women MPs in Westminster from African, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds received 35% more abusive tweets than white women MPs, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington received 46% of all abusive tweets sent in the run-up to the election.
It is vital that the barriers to women’s representation, including the threat of or experience of violence, abuse and harassment, are removed. Diversity thrives more effectively with inclusive policy making, allowing Governments to better represent the populations they serve. Social media companies and the Government must work together to root out the online abuse that plagues the online political sphere, and that disproportionately targets women. The true identity of those who use social media platforms must be known.
When we look at the gendered and racial inequalities in the UK and across the world, we know that there has been an unacceptable breakdown of our social contract. The Women’s Budget Group found that women have shouldered a shocking 86% of the burden of austerity cuts. We face three urgent crises: coronavirus, climate change and crumbling social infrastructure. Women, particularly women of colour, are at the forefront of those crises. Only radical solutions will address the systemic gendered and racial inequalities. We need women leaders with the strength and courage to recognise that our responsibility is not to mediate an unjust system but to transform it.
Online abuse stands in the way of that future. Polling shows that women are often deterred from running for office because of abuse and harassment. We cannot accept that. The time has come for the Government to work seriously with social media giants to bring this epidemic of misogynistic abuse and violence to an end.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) on securing this debate.
I will quote briefly from a 23-year-old candidate who is standing in the election in Scotland:
“I think that online abuse was one of the biggest things in my mind when I was preparing to stand. I have grown up with the internet and I think I was prepared for what I was getting into, and when I thought about standing I did think that this was going to be quite tough from a social media point of view. This is something that many women will think about, and it’s not an easy decision. However, I don’t think anyone is quite prepared for the first time you get piled on with abuse on Twitter. I think of myself as being pretty resilient, but who I worry about are my friends and family, because they didn’t sign up for any of this.”
That person is Molly Nolan and, as I said, she is 23 and a candidate in the Scottish election. Colleagues might be pardoned for thinking that I am making a party political point; I am not and I want to broaden it out.
In 2016, I stood for the Scottish Parliament and was beaten fair and square by the Scottish National party candidate Gail Ross, who for the past five years has served the constituency of Caithness, Sutherland and Ross. The online abuse Gail has suffered is beyond belief. I have seen some of it and it is disgusting. At one point, somebody stole her Facebook identity, masqueraded as her online and started dealing with vulnerable constituents. Nobody like Gail deserves anything like that.
I am glad that Gail and I have stayed friends throughout all this. This morning, I asked her permission to mention her in this debate, which she gave with alacrity. That is the nature of our deep and lasting friendship. She made a point that I had not thought about before. The highlands are made up of small, scattered communities. Wick, where she lives, is one of the bigger ones but most people there know each other. What really hurt Gail and drew blood was the fact that people known to her in her community were saying and doing these dreadful things. That must be a sickening thing to live with.
My second point is brief and I will abuse my position as a Member of this place. In a former existence, I was a councillor in the highlands a long time ago. I suppose I could say that Highland Council was possibly somewhere where misogyny might thrive a bit. I remember that one lady councillor called Mrs Isobel Rhind, a superb councillor who represented Invergordon, was held back because she was female. My point is that misogyny back then has turned into online abuse today; it has been empowered and made worse. I have longed for many years to put Mrs Isobel Rhind’s name on the record in Hansard. She is probably the best councillor Invergordon ever had—there, I have said it.
Today Molly Nolan, the 23-year-old candidate for my party, soldiers on. She is coping with the abuse. Other candidates of all parties have had similar abuse and are getting on with it, but it is not easy. Gail Ross has just been appointed the communications director for Dounreay, which is new career move for her. I hope we can work together across party boundaries. I will work with Gail and use every means at my disposal to fight this fiendishly awful thing in our society. I hope we can sort it out, because if we do not, as others have said, we are just going to make life a hell of a lot worse.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) for securing today’s debate.
More women stood in the 2019 general election than ever before, and more female MPs came through as a result. This is progress, but to keep more women coming forward, we need to do more urgently to tackle the abuse that politicians have to deal with online. Forty-nine per cent. of candidates in the 2019 election reported that they suffered some form of abuse, harassment or intimidation while campaigning—up 11% from 2017. Worryingly, female politicians face far more abuse than male ones. We also report more acts of intimidation, threats, physical violence and mental abuse. Is it any wonder that the average female MP resigning in 2019 had served a full six years less than the average resigning male MP?
At my selection to represent North Devon, I was given an article entitled “Abuse, stalkers, death threats—who’d be a female MP?”. I did not read it. Indeed, that is how so many of us deal with the abuse—we ignore it. Heaven forbid that we should choose not to, read what is written about us, which bears no resemblance to the truth, and attempt to fight back. We do our best to joke with other female colleagues about how many death threats we have received. My voodoo curse was a particularly unusual one. Although MPs have to be thick-skinned, that should not be a normal conversation.
We do our best to laugh it off, but others read the comments. A charity that I was supporting this weekend observed on my arrival how much hatred people must have to write abuse on my Twitter feed following my support of its charitable event. On moving in, my new neighbours popped their head over the wall and said how sorry they were for the dreadful comments I received on Facebook. They could not believe what people wrote. More important still, other women and girls who might aspire to follow in our footsteps read the comments and have to assess that as part of their decision to put themselves forward.
Local female candidates in North Devon have stood down, and it is pretty hard to get female candidates to stand up in the first place, but why would they want to put their friends and families through such abuse? I speak today not for myself or even for my constituents, but for women everywhere. I am speaking to ensure that our Parliament continues to better reflect the wider population. I am speaking to encourage more to be done to tackle the cowards who hide behind anonymous profiles. I am speaking out because it is the right thing to do. Although I am proud to be the first female MP for North Devon, I do not want to be the last.
The analytical mathematician in me wonders why people do it. It is unpleasant, unnecessary and upsetting. We must call it out wherever we see it. We must not let it go unchallenged. We must not accept that this is normal. As a former teacher, I say that we should call out the online abuse that we all endure as the bullying it truly is. If we want Parliament to better reflect society, retain the additional women elected in 2019 and go on to achieve a 50:50 ratio, we cannot accept that ignoring our social media feeds is the new normal.
The silent majority believes that too. I hope it will find its inner keyboard warrior and speak up, particularly for female politicians of all political persuasions, the great majority of whom work tirelessly for the people who elected them. In the words of the great Michelle Obama,
“When someone is cruel or acts like a bully, you don’t stoop to their level. No, our motto is, when they go low, we go high.”
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) for this important debate.
Women are under-represented at all levels of decision making, which means that action is urgently needed from the Government and all political parties to ensure that the voices of women in all our diversity are heard. Only 34% of MPs, and only 35% of elected councillors in England and Wales, are women. Those statistics matter because when women are not equally represented in positions of power, we do not get an equal say in policy making, which inevitably leads to unequal outcomes.
It is crucial that we do all we can to remove the barriers to women’s representation in politics, including online threats and the experience of violence, abuse and harassment. Violence and abuse against women in politics, both online and offline, not only prevent women from standing for election; they drive those who have already been elected to leave politics early, as we have heard. I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) contributing to this debate. It is a real shame that his is the only contribution from a male colleague, other than my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson), of course.
It is a sad fact that women politicians who are black, Asian or from an ethnic minority background face an increased risk of abuse based on their race, as well as their gender. As highlighted by Amnesty International, in the six weeks prior to the 2017 general election women MPs in Westminster from those backgrounds received 35% more abusive tweets than white women MPs.
Those statistics become even more shocking when we consider that there are just 37 ethnic minority MPs in the House of Commons right now. That is just 5.7% of all MPs. Once again, the well documented disproportionate impact of the pandemic on BAME communities highlights why it is important that barriers preventing women of colour from standing for office are also broken down so that policy can be effectively influenced in this area by those with a diverse lived experience.
I hope that the Minister can share the Government’s wider strategy on the increase in online abuse and extremism due to lockdown. It is clear that the increase in online abuse is posing a real threat to democracy and equal participation. Equal Power data shows that there has been a big increase in the number of women saying that they are unlikely to put themselves forward in an election in the space of the last 18 months. In December 2019, 59% of women surveyed said that they were unlikely to stand as an MP, with 44% saying that they were unlikely to stand as councillor. That figure has risen if there were an election within the year—just a year on from the start of the pandemic—to 74% unlikely to stand as an MP and 62% unlikely to stand as a councillor.
I agree with the Centenary Action Group that the online harms Bill is an opportunity to tackle online abuse against women and girls, including elected representatives. However, there is concern that the White Paper falls short when addressing the disproportionate levels of online harm faced by women and those with protected characteristics. I hope that the Minister can agree that the online harms Bill must include gender-based abuse as a priority and recognise the compounding harm experienced by those with multiple protected characteristics rather than characterise them as separate issues. Abuse of any nature, online or offline, is unacceptable. It damages both democracy and equality.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Paisley. I was not planning to speak in this debate. It has been my preference not to speak about the online abuse that I face, because frankly I have never really wanted to give these people credence by even acknowledging it. That is my choice, which suits me. Others, as we have heard very eloquently, have chosen differently, and I say good for them. We should all deal with this nonsense in whatever way we feel is best.
I decided to speak today because I had agreed to speak in an event later this week organised by Women 5050. I felt that were I to stand up and tell them that it was all fantastic being a public representative and not mention the cesspit that is online commentary, I would be a bit dishonest and a bit of hypocrite. Just to be clear: I love my job. Let us also be clear that we know, as politicians, that we have chosen to be in public life. That brings with it an acceptance of public criticism, but that should not be an acceptance of threats or abuse.
Although it is the biggest privilege of my life to represent people in my local area and to be part of a party and movement that I believe in so strongly, and I would obviously encourage others to take that step too, it is not all sweetness and light. Maybe calling it out, at least sometimes, makes the road for the next woman coming along a little smoother.
I will dwell a little on Women 5050, whose website makes stark reading. It says:
“Today, despite making up 52% of the population, in Scotland women only make up 42% of public board members, 25% of public board chairs, 35% of MSPs”.
That is not good enough, and I am delighted by the steps that the Scottish National party has taken and is taking, whether that be on our gender-balanced Cabinet; Nicola Sturgeon, who works so hard to push on equality; the central focus on women in our Holyrood manifesto; or our gender balance in candidate selection.
Of course, the Westminster Parliament has so much further to go to achieve equality, but whether it is in Holyrood, Westminster or council chambers, or in political discussion anywhere, statistics show us that this is a real issue across the world. We have a problem with online abuse, harassment and worse. If we do not tackle it, we are going to lose out. We need to take steps now and to make our Parliaments look much more like our countries.
When Women 5050 approached me, it mentioned that my colleague Fatima Joji had been involved in its work. That settled it for me in terms of participating in its events and in the debate today. As well as being an excellent candidate in the Holyrood election—she would make an outstanding MSP—as a young black women in politics, Fatima has been subjected to even more nastiness, bile and abuse than other women in the public eye, but she persists and we are all the better for her participation and that of all the other women we have heard about today.
We have heard clearly today that our female black and minority ethnic representatives in particular experience such a lot of disgraceful abuse—it is not on. Politics is not for the fainthearted, nor should it be for robots devoid of human feelings. It is not just in Parliaments that women are disproportionately impacted by this online bile. Our council chambers and political movements are full of women who are subjected to nastiness, name-calling, lies and threats. It needs to stop. I discussed this yesterday with a woman friend who is a local councillor and the sad thing is that we spoke about it as if it was completely normal. Of course, it is normal in our experience, but it really should not be.
One of the things that can be so difficult is the nameless, faceless nature of a lot of this. Apart from the fact that abusers are clearly complete cowards hiding behind their wee avatars, it is obviously much more difficult to deal with when we have no idea who it is who feels so emboldened by their anonymity to post things that they would certainly never have the balls to say in real life to their wife or with their mum listening in or to their friendly local police officer. As we have heard, it sometimes spills off social media to other corners of the internet, or off the internet completely, which can be very concerning.
I have been actively involved in politics since 2014 and there is no doubt that there is more and worse abuse now than there was then. Rather than the terrible murder of Jo Cox being the catalyst it should have been for a reset, which was surely the only appropriate response to such an awful event, we see now that it has actually been amplified with a good dose of fake news stirred in, because plain abuse on its own is not good enough.
We sometimes know the people online who feed on hate or feel brave enough to send stuff our way would struggle with if it came back in the same direction. Sometimes, there is not a law against it, because it skirts pretty close, but it is unedifying none the less. Facebook is pretty rubbish, frankly, at dealing with it. It is not really interested in that any more than it is in dealing with the fake news. Twitter is only marginally better.
It was telling at the recent International Women’s Day debate, which was a very sombre affair in the shadow of Sarah Everard’s murder, there was a palpable scunner—I do not know how better to express that—at the online crap that every single woman in the Chamber that day, no matter our variety of political opinions, knew all about. That day it felt like we were collectively worn down.
We need to do something. I say again, I am fortunate to do the job I do. I know others say they might not have pursued their career again if they had known. I understand that, but I am delighted to be here today. I am delighted to speak, because, although it is against my better judgement in some ways, we have to stand up and say that we will not allow this to prevent women from getting into politics and making a difference. I am also delighted with the work the SNP Scottish Government are doing to try to improve fairness and political representation. It makes a difference and is very powerful.
We support the ambitions of the online harms Bill, especially when it comes to the issues that affect vulnerable people and children. We urge the UK Government to take it further and be stronger. Do not let big tech shirk away from its responsibilities. The points about the ways in which we can clean up the internet—giving people the opportunity to verify their identity and making it easier to block unverified users—are well made, although they do not come without their own challenges. Whatever the solution, not only for elected representatives but for other vulnerable people in danger of harm online, the real danger is that if we do not stand up and take steps, it will only get significantly worse.
Ian Paisley (in the Chair)
I do not know whether Hansard reporters know the word “scunner”, but I will try to inform them from across the sheugh what it was you actually said. Thank you for your contribution. I call the Opposition spokesperson, Christian Matheson.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
It is always a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. I thank all hon. Members who have taken part in today’s debate, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield), for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare) and for Jarrow (Kate Osborne). I congratulate the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) on securing this debate. I pay tribute to the consistent leadership that she has shown in this House and in public over many years. I know it is appreciated by hon. Members across the House.
Let me reflect on two matters. First, the issue goes to the heart of our democracy. If hon. Members in this Chamber went on an election monitoring visit and they were outside a polling station where there was an armed militia outside preventing a section of society from either voting or getting involved in democracy, they would give a black mark against the quality of democracy in the country they were monitoring. That is exactly what is happening here—a section of our community is being prevented from full participating in our democracy.
Three years ago we remembered the 100th anniversary of universal women’s suffrage. That of course referred to women having the vote. I like to think that these days suffrage means full participation as well. If we have not got full participation, we do not have the women’s suffrage that we celebrated the 100th anniversary of. It goes to the heart of the quality of our democracy and should be a matter for us all.
I also want to reflect on something that my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow mentioned. I am a white male MP. The truth is that I do not know the half of it. I know there is a problem, but I cannot claim to know the half of it. You, Mr Paisley, and the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) might feel the same, but we do not understand the intensity, the ferocity and the incessant nature of the abuse that women and also black and minority ethnic MPs receive day after day. I lay down a challenge to male hon. Members from across the House: let us understand how incessant and ferocious the abuse is, or at least accept the fact that we do not understand it and listen to our female colleagues. Male Members understand there is an issue, but the severity, the ferocity and incessant nature of it is not understood.
We know of the benefits of the internet. During lockdown it has kept us in contact, and we have been able to continue shopping, learning and working, but we also know how dark it can be and how that corrodes society. We have heard reference to the Inter-Parliamentary Union’s 2016 survey: 39 countries found that 82% of women politicians surveyed had experienced some form of psychological violence; 44%—almost half—had received threats of death, rape, beatings or abduction; and 65% had been subjected to sexist remarks.
As we have also heard today from hon. Members, those from a black, Asian or minority ethnic background face an increased risk of abuse on the basis of their race as well as their gender, and there has been reference to the Amnesty International report and the number of tweets that women from those backgrounds have received. Behind every one of those statistics is an individual, a family or a staff member who faces the abuse, as I say, almost daily. Nobody should have to worry about their safety or their family’s safety when they come in to work, but, as we have heard today, that is the reality for women representatives.
Research indicates that Parliaments are much more likely to substantially tackle key issues such as violence and harassment against women when an increased number of female legislators are elected. However, those issues put off many women from standing to be elected. We have heard that 34% of MPs and 35% of local councillors in England and Wales are women. We all want more diversity to drive more effective and inclusive policy making. But we have also heard today about the report from the Fawcett Society on this issue that says that the number of women unlikely to stand as an MP has risen to 74% from 59% and that 69% of respondents said that abuse or harassment from the public or other parties was one of the main reasons for not pursuing a career in politics.
The hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) asked an interesting question about why people carry out this abuse. I know that the Chair of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), has talked about facing down bullies involved in it. The mentality behind it perplexes me, but it is something that we need to try to understand. A report from the Centre for Countering Digital Hate shows that there are people who seem to enjoy causing harm to others. That psychological trait is known as negative social potency. When those people see that their abuse has caused someone harm, that gives them the validation that they are looking for. Perhaps more worryingly, the report also talks about purposely organised online hate networks. The Centre for Countering Digital Hate found a playbook, published on a far-right website, that instructed readers to target abuse at high-profile public figures as a way to generate more publicity for their extremist ideas.
Social media platforms such as Facebook, Google, YouTube, Instagram and Twitter are now part of our daily lives. Yes, they may bring benefits, but we have allowed them to become a safe space for sexism, misogyny and racism. That cannot be the norm. Online, a person can become anyone or no one if they like, with no consequences for their actions. Increased anonymity online leads to increasingly hateful and abusive language. People online feel that they can hide behind a mask and get away with language and actions that they would not otherwise do, as the Chair of the Select Committee illustrated when she faced down some of her abusers in the street.
Tackling abuse and extremism online must mean tackling the worst parts of anonymity online. The hon. Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie), who is not in her place, and the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Jane Stevenson) talked about anonymity. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East also talked about some of the benefits of anonymity—for example, for whistleblowers, victims finding online refuge, or children and minorities. There are downsides to banning anonymity, and we have to find a mechanism for exposing identity where that is necessary but protecting anonymity in those cases in which it is important.
The individuals behind online hate and abuse are of course guilty of this unacceptable behaviour, and it is the huge foreign tech giants that need to start taking responsibility for the hate that exists on their platforms. No matter how vulnerable or well informed people are, they have little control over the content, which is curated by tech platforms, allowing the spread of disinformation, sexual exploitation, fake news, extremism, hatred and other harmful content—the misogyny that we are talking about today.
The main reason why tech giants refuse properly to tackle hate on their platforms is clear. Unsurprisingly, that is driven by their financial interests. They are reluctant to spend money hiring moderators, although they accept that that is part of the solution. When Germany passed a law to fine social media companies up to €50 million for failing to take down abusive content within 24 hours of its being reported, Facebook set up the content moderation centre in Germany, its largest in the world, and hired 1,200 moderators to staff it. That proves that it is possible to tackle online hate if the companies are willing to do so. When there is a financial incentive, they will hire people to remove abusive messages more quickly.
The Government need to stop cradling foreign tech giants and instead take action on online hate, so we are awaiting the online safety Bill and we will support the Government where they take the necessary action. We do feel that it has been too slow, so I ask the Minister whether she can tell us precisely when the Bill will come to the House and when we can crack on with work to support the new legislation.
This is not just about the big tech giants. It is about individuals and their being forced to take responsibility for their actions, and their corroding our democracy, corroding the lives of women who are trying to do their best in whichever area of public life, forcing them to step away from public life, and therefore damaging our democracy. It should not take the death of a young woman on the streets for us to start talking about street harassment towards women. It should not take someone taking their own life because of the online abuse that they have received for us to start talking about online harassment and abuse. This is an issue that is happening now. The Government need to start taking urgent action to deal with it, and we will support them in that urgent action.
The Chair of the Select Committee talked in her speech about abuse that starts online and then becomes physical. It is bad enough to be bullied online and bullied out of public life. We cannot take the risk that that will go further. I therefore challenge male MPs to start taking this more seriously and to start understanding the ferocity and the level of the abuse that women face. I will work with the Minister on the online safety Bill to give maximum protection, for the sake of women everywhere and for the sake of our democracy.
Ian Paisley (in the Chair)
Before I call the Minister, I thank every single Member who has contributed to what has been a powerful debate. These things needed to be said, and they have been very well said.
The Minister for Digital and Culture (Caroline Dinenage)
It is a great honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) on securing this incredibly important debate. I know that she has always been a passionate campaigner in this area, and she is also the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on women in Parliament, which leads such important work to protect women in Parliament—online and offline. I thank her for everything that she does in this space, and I also thank all Members who have taken part in the debate.
All the speeches were incredibly heartfelt and brave. They show the will across the House to address this pernicious and distressing issue. Sadly, this is one of those issues that bear out the words of our former friend and colleague Jo Cox in a most unpleasant way, because we
“have far more in common than that which divides us.”—[Official Report, 3 June 2015; Vol. 596, c. 675.]
Is it not tragic that that is the case? It is sometimes hard to fathom how the faceless and cowardly abuse of those in the public eye has almost become part of the job description. It has become a fact of life. It has become something that almost goes with the territory. How messed up is it that we feel that way?
As many Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke, have said, the word “abuse” seems almost insufficient to describe what so many female MPs and others in the public eye experience: threats of rape, violence and death to themselves and their family members. The number of contributions to the debate highlights the scale of the problem. Of course, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), who chairs the Select Committee, said, it is always impossible to know whether such online threats will tip over into real life. That is what is most chilling.
The Government are absolutely clear that online abuse, and particularly abuse targeted at women, is utterly reprehensible and completely unacceptable. The abuse can have such a significant impact on female representation in all walks of life. It silences women from speaking out. It prevents them from sharing their experiences online. It deters them from pursuing certain roles or, in this case, from seeking election or office at every single level. It can also hasten an early departure from this job, as we have also heard.
Jamie Stone
When I quoted my friend Gail Ross, I was also thinking about her small boy. I hope he does not know what was said, but if he did, would that not put another generation off politics? They would not touch it with a barge pole.
Caroline Dinenage
That is such an important point, and it is actually something that I was thinking about as I was listening to the contributions to the debate. I took an almost conscious decision not to put my children on my social media, for that very reason. I do not want what I do as a job to have an impact on them. How messed up and crazy is it that we feel that we cannot share things about our lives because of the impact that it will have? Of course, that has a dramatic impact on democracy when it puts people off standing for election at every single level. That affects women and stops their voices being heard in this Chamber and in society more broadly. As other Members have said, our success as a Parliament utterly depends on our having elected figures who better reflect the communities that we represent.
I know there are organisations that have led studies on abuse targeted at women, such as Glitch, Amnesty International and the Centenary Action Group. This work has such an important role to play in strengthening our understanding of the scale and prevalence of abuse targeted at women representatives and others, and my Department has been supporting research led by the University of Sheffield that assessed online abuse during the 2019 general election campaign and the covid-19 lockdown. The findings suggested that abuse directed at MPs has increased. I think we all recognise that. From the 2017 and 2019 general elections it was clear that there are some MPs who are more affected, and that particularly includes, as the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) said, those with intersectionality. Women from minority backgrounds were particularly targeted. Bizarrely, as we have been sitting here I have noticed that a colleague in Parliament has tweeted:
“Today’s mailbag with photos and photos of beheadings that would make you sick. It’s not unusual for MPs to be dealing with racists and this stuff isn’t new to me, but today I feel exhausted.”
I think that we all feel exhausted by it, Mr Paisley.
As the hon. Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) said, the additional research shows that over the lockdown period individuals, and prominent women in particular, were still receiving high levels of abuse. It has got significantly worse. Of the 26 MPs who received sexist abuse only four were men, with women receiving high volumes of personal attacks—attacks on their credibility, and sexually explicit abuse. Although men are a greater proportion of MPs, women get much higher volumes of abuse, which is of course unacceptable. There is some support for Members in managing their online and offline security through the parliamentary channels, but of course much more needs to be done at that level.
All that only goes to underline how vital the Government’s online safety Bill is. It will protect women and all users online. We published the full Government response to the Online Harms White Paper consultation last year, outlining our fundamental commitment to taking forward a new legal duty of care that companies will have towards their users. That will mean that companies must have robust systems and processes in place to tackle illegal content, including illegal online abuse and anonymous abuse. They will need to remove content quickly, or face enforcement action from Ofcom, which will be the new regulator. Companies with the largest audience and the most high-risk features will have to address legal but harmful content for both adults and children. That will include online abuse that does not cross criminal thresholds but is still harmful for users and could leave a significant impact on victims.
Companies will also need to ensure that they have effective, accessible mechanisms through which users can report concerns about harmful content. That has always been a big issue. People do not know how to report such things. It is all very murky and needs to be much clearer. They need to be able to challenge wrongful content take-down as well, and raise concerns that a company has failed to fulfil its duty of care.
I understand clearly, and sympathise enormously with, calls for compulsory user verification for social media, which my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Jane Stevenson) raised. However, there are concerns that it would prevent legitimate users such as human rights activists or whistleblowers from protecting themselves, dissuade vulnerable users such as victims of domestic violence from seeking support, or deter young LGBT people who are not ready to come out to their friends and family from seeking the information and support they need. However, I am keen to look at imaginative and innovative ways to tackle the issue. There must be some way to square the circle. I would gently like to say that online platforms do not have to wait for legislation to move on the matter. If they want to put it right, they could start to put their houses in order now, to rebuild the trust. Surely they have a moral duty not to stand by and let such things continue to happen.
We are working at pace to prepare the Bill. It will be ready later in the year. The hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) asked me about that and we want to get it out as soon as possible. It is, however, vital to get it right, and we want all parliamentarians to contribute to that important work.
I want quickly to mention our work with the Law Commission and how the criminal law will improve protection for women and users online. It is reviewing how the criminal law relates to harmful online communication and has consulted on reforms that include new ways to tackle pile-on abuse, cyber-flashing and self-harm. I know that that will be of interest to Members. The final recommendations will be published this summer and we are looking at where it would be appropriate to bring those things into law.
Finally, the Government will in due course legislate for a new electoral sanction that will help to protect women who contribute to our public life from intimidation and abuse, in person and online. That means that someone convicted of intimidating a candidate, future candidate, campaigner or elected representative will be banned from standing for or holding elected office for five years. That new sanction is just one part of the Government’s programme of work against political intimidation. We are working with partners to provide security guidance to support the elections that are coming up next month, ensuring the delivery of a safe and inclusive democratic event.
This Government are absolutely committed to protecting female representatives, both online and offline. The disproportionate abuse that women receive online, which we have heard about today, has absolutely no place in a thriving and tolerant democracy. We will do all we can to protect not only women representatives, but all users, as part of the online safety Bill. We are working at pace to deliver the new electoral sanctions and to prepare that legislation, and we will ensure that Members across both Houses can contribute to those vital pieces of work.
Ian Paisley (in the Chair)
We normally have to rise at five to the hour, but I will give Mrs Maria Miller one minute to wind up.
Mrs Miller
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for taking part in the debate. The Government need to get the law right, and we have heard from the Minister, but Parliament and the House of Commons need to play their role, too. Online abuse is an affront to our democracy, and it is a workplace safety issue. We cannot allow women to be bullied out of public life by online abuse, because that weakens our democracy. The House of Commons needs to up its game in monitoring and supporting Members and their staff, and the APPG stands ready to assist with that work.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered online abuse of elected women representatives.
Office for Investment
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Ian Paisley (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice in order to support the new hybrid arrangements. I remind Members participating virtually that they are visible at all times, both to one another and to us in the Boothroyd Room. If Members attending virtually have any technical problems, they should of course email the Westminster Hall Clerks’ email address. Members attending physically should clean their spaces before they use them and before they leave the room. I also remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Westminster Hall, unless you are speaking.
Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con) [V]
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the role of the Office for Investment.
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley, and a real pleasure to be able to debate this issue, which is of huge importance to, and presents huge opportunities for, our country’s future growth. I am especially pleased to be having this debate not only because foreign direct investment—FDI—is so important to the national economy, but because it is so relevant to many of my constituents. We in Hertford and Stortford are part of the world-renowned innovation corridor, and our local life sciences sector is one area of particular opportunity and attractiveness to foreign investors.
The Government unveiled their plans for the Office for Investment in November last year, specifically designed to attract FDI into the UK. The aim is to connect public and private sector expertise in order to drive investment into all parts of the UK. I am particularly pleased that that has such strong and specific support from the Prime Minister in No. 10 and the Treasury. It is a Government priority at the highest level. We have long been a global centre of FDI in this country. FDI stock levels reached £1.6 trillion by the end of 2019. We have traditionally been the top FDI destination in Europe, and according to the World Bank we are second only to Denmark in offering the best business environment in the world. That has been so crucial to the success of our start-up ecosystem, and it is why so many businesses want to come here.
We have maintained our FDI leadership in Europe when many thought that we could not, or would not, post the EU referendum. FDI markets reported that between July 2016 and September 2020 foreign investors announced nearly 5,000 UK projects, more than Germany and over 50% more than France over the same period. The impact that that success has had on UK venture in particular has been huge. It has helped to fuel a world-beating venture sector that has insulated the UK’s start-up and scale-up communities from many of the global shocks of the past decade. Interventions of the past decade to usher in new FDI have made major contributions to our world-renowned and highly enviable start-up and small and medium-sized enterprise ecosystem, which has in turn nurtured and enabled so much growth in new, and sometimes brand new, parts of our economy.
However, covid has taken its toll on FDI right across the globe, including here in the UK. There was a 49% global drop in FDI flows in the first half of 2020, which will already have had profound consequences for our economies and prospects for future growth, but it is true to say that negative trends had already started to emerge before the outbreak. Between 2018 and 2019, the UK’s FDI flows had already fallen by £6 billion, well before we had even heard of covid. We cannot blame covid for all of a trend that had already begun, and we have to respond with purpose. That is fundamental to the short-term health and recovery of our economy, as well as to our long-term growth prospects. Central leadership is needed to unblock the most complex cases and put FDI at the top of the UK’s agenda. The Government have set out how this new office will provide that leadership, and I am sure the Minister will confirm that the Government will ensure that the Office for Investment is given the necessary prominence to make a real difference and command the authority to work with Departments beyond the Department for International Trade to truly work across Whitehall, catalysing activity across all Departments.
The UK’s overall history of FDI is a story of success. Even now we are competing well, despite a recent dip, but a closer look at data reveals a divided country, which poses problems for the UK’s future. Since 2016, London and the south-east has increased its share of total FDI projects to more than 51%. That clearly has an impact on regional inequality and the spread of opportunity—an issue that I know the Government and the Minister are well aware of and are determined to address. Could the Minister explain how the Office for Investment will use its influence to guide investment to different parts of the UK? Data also shows that devolved Administrations have an advantage in securing FDI, compared with English regions outside London. I should be very interested to hear how the Minister intends the office to work for the entire country, to elevate areas previously left behind and provide a coherent, co-ordinated strategy.
Bringing new investment to all parts of the UK is at the heart of the Office for Investment’s purpose. I am keen to use a little more time to discuss the importance of a regional approach to FDI, because it is in the regions that we will discover the most untapped new potential. Most new wealth over the next few years will be created through emerging industries such as green energy; it will not come from the already saturated markets that make up most of today’s FTSE 250. London’s market simply does not have as much capacity for new growth as those of the regions. Off the back of the pandemic especially, we have a great opportunity to develop new powerhouse regions to match the might of London. Right now, the gap between the most and least productive local enterprise partnerships is growing, but a balanced FDI strategy can help reverse that trend and level up our economy and regions.
It seems obvious that FDI is one of the keys to scaling the success of the many positive and innovative announcements made in the Budget last month, such as the super deduction and freeports. For every FinTech hub in London we need a thriving life sciences sector somewhere else. With better levels of FDI in regions, skills will follow investment, providing new opportunities to retain the best talent and attract it from afar.
It is equally important to recognise that FDI is not just vital for the start and scale-up sector of business. The biggest and most established companies also seek opportunities to expand and invest around the globe. We are right to demonstrate our ambition and commitment to get them investing here, where their FDI will create more jobs, improve productivity and unleash research and development investment.
As important as a regional approach to FDI is to the future of our economy, equally important are the sectors that the Office for Investment will target. To compete globally in 10 and 20 years’ time, we have to pinpoint the right markets that will one day lead the world. It may be that the FTSE is stocked with establishment banks and oil companies at the moment, but it will not be those industries providing the high-growth success stories of the next decade and more. New wealth will rely on fledgling, disruptive sectors—some growing now, some to be established and some just dreamed of. Could the Minister explain how the Office for Investment will better enable the UK to attract FDI in those strategically important sectors for our long-term growth ambitions?
I was extremely pleased to see that we have secured the new sovereign investment partnership with the United Arab Emirates, announced last month. From the Government’s £200 million investment in life sciences we have leveraged a further £800 million, giving a total investment inflow of £1 billion, all negotiated through the Office for Investment. This is a blueprint for success, which is so impressive and so important.
As a cricket fan I have used cricket analogies before, but I feel it bears repeating today that the role we play in this place to secure future FDI in growth in strategically important sectors is somewhat akin to that of a cricket groundsman. As I see it, we are the groundsmen and women whose job it is to prepare the wicket for our batsmen to thrive. Cricket fans will recall how England’s batsmen felt the wrong end of a rough wicket at the hands of Indian groundsmen recently; the groundsmen prepared their wickets to suit their bowlers and make life harder for our batsmen. In much the same way, it will be the job of England’s groundsmen to prepare our wickets to suit our own batsmen, not their bowlers, during the return fixture. That is the home advantage principle, which we should be applying in this place too. It is our job to set up advantages for our businesses, communities and regions by preparing a wicket to suit our ambitions. Admittedly, we are on quite a sticky wicket at the moment, but with every rough patch that emerges, there is an opportunity for the most creative of spinners to take advantage of the new landscape.
That is what I believe the purpose of this office should be, and indeed is, and I read with great interest the initiatives that are being rolled out by the Office for Investment to that end. The foreign investment summit will, I believe, be the largest gathering of investors to meet in the UK ever. Its focus on clean technologies is a clear signal that the Government understand where their attention should be focused in order to capitalise on the biggest future growth opportunities.
When I worked in corporate and international banking, my role was to engage senior investors with high value opportunities, so I understand how important a statement this summit makes in telling the world that the UK is open for business and in nurturing and developing strategically important relationships. We cannot overestimate the huge dogfight for FDI currently taking place across the world. Global competition for FDI has never been fiercer as countries try to recover from covid-19. It is for this reason that I believe now is the time to prepare our wicket effectively, to make sure that the UK is on top of its game. The Office for Investment and set pieces such as the foreign investment summit can be a central plank of that ambition. With that in mind, would the Minister expand on the single front door strategy, and explain how the Office for Investment will be given the prominence and capacity it needs to lead this work and navigate the UK through the currently incredibly competitive climate?
I welcome the establishment of the office and what it says to the world about the UK’s priorities for the future. We are a country that is open for business on a global scale and inviting of others to add value to that endeavour. Given the title the Office for Investment, I wonder whether we might even be practical and prudent to extend or replicate the UK’s domestic investment centre. So much wealth is already under management in the UK: nearly £10 trillion worth of assets. To challenge the US as the best place to grow new innovation and technology, we need to encourage more FDI, but we also need to encourage more domestic investment at an earlier stage to catalyse growth.
A relatively small proportion of the £10 trillion-worth of assets under management in the UK is ever directed at UK venture, and yet we still have one of the world’s largest venture markets: $13.2 billion was invested in UK venture in 2019, making it the fourth-largest market in the world by inward investment. Imagine, though, how much potential could be catalysed if we were to channel a larger portion of assets under management into venture. A domestic version of this office, to include examining changes to the domestic regulatory landscape, could encourage a greater flow of capital into UK-backed venture. Various Government-led initiatives could be considered that encouraged or even obliged the biggest investors in the UK, such as institutional pension funds, to include venture as an asset class in all they do. That might fall outside the Minister’s current purview at the Department for International Trade, but I would be interested in his thoughts on the potential of a dual approach, to look at foreign and domestic investment.
This is a very positive step forward for the UK’s FDI strategy. It will provide clear leadership in Government and a clear and obvious door for foreign investors to go through. The office has my full support and I look forward with great optimism to the foreign investment summit, which I believe will help to position the UK as the natural choice for foreign investors.
Ian Paisley (in the Chair)
The rules state that with the permission of the Member opening the debate and the Minister, a Member may make a short speech, so I call Marco Longhi.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley.
The Office for Investment will bring a real focus on delivery and inward investment. Evidence shows a direct correlation between job creation and foreign investment. If there ever was a time for that to happen at pace, it is now. Let me draw a loose parallel between the Office for Investment and directly elected Mayors. When they were first proposed in the early 2000s, I was set against them. In most ways I was wrong. I saw the whole thing as a replication of a failed tier of government—county councils—but the proof of the pudding has been in the eating. In the West Midlands we have had a dynamic Mayor in Andy Street. He makes things happen. A straightforward example of that was his intervention in the demolition of a large derelict block of offices known as Cavendish House in Dudley—a blight on the Dudley landscape for 15 years, which nobody was seemingly able to remove.
The creation of the Office for Investment under the leadership of Minister Lord Grimstone, working hand in hand with No. 10 to attract investment, is absolutely key. In some respects, it is a similar functional role—a supermayor, if I may suggest it, although Members of the other place would never think that of themselves. So much depends on the quality of the individual selected. We need only look at London to see the stark difference between the dynamic former Mayor that we used to have and the depressing failed existing one.
The other focus that the Office for Investment can bring is the strategic nature and application of investments around the country. Opportunities in technology, advanced manufacturing, services, green research and development and digital are all strong areas of growth that are aligned with Government priorities for productivity and a greener economy, and their development across the country is key. That brings opportunities to areas where there has been relentless decline over many years—forgotten areas such as mine in Dudley and the Black Country—levelling up.
The Office for Investment has a big job to do and it has my full support. It represents a single front door to the UK for investors, who can confidently look at the UK with deliverability and speed of return at the heart of their investment in UK plc.
Ian Paisley (in the Chair)
As I would like the Minister to have time to make his speech, I call on the hon. Member for Strangford to make a short contribution.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. I spoke to the Minister before the debate, but I would like to put it on the record and congratulate him and our Government on their sterling efforts with the Office for Investment. It has created some 2,000 jobs in Northern Ireland. We are eternally grateful for that, because those jobs have been in technology, in the cyber sector and others. As well as my encouragement, I am sure that you, Mr Paisley, as an MP for Northern Ireland, will look forward to seeing how that develops. Some 3,000 jobs were created in Scotland, so Northern Ireland is punching above its weight. We have had opportunities in the past to discuss this issue with the Minister, so I look forward to what he has to say.
In Northern Ireland we are fortunate to have low rates and high skills, particularly among young people, who are eager and progressive in their outlook and wish to succeed. This is an opportunity for them. How can we increase those jobs beyond the 2,000? All these points make Northern Ireland the ideal place, with the best people, for increasing jobs, opportunity and investment.
I am very keen to know what the UK-wide strategy will be, as Northern Ireland is ready and waiting and has delivered in the past. There are many young people, and those who are of a middle age as well, who have the wherewithal to be part of the increase in investment jobs through the Office for Investment. The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Julie Marson) is right that jobs and skills follow investment. We want to make sure that Northern Ireland is part of that. Perhaps the Minister could indicate in his response how Northern Ireland will be part of that great strategy for all of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Obviously, as an MP for Northern Ireland and particularly Strangford, I want to see jobs coming to us.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Graham Stuart)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Paisley. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Julie Marson) for securing this debate and for all the contributions, which were focused on the importance of investment to the livelihoods, the prosperity and quality of life of people in Members’ constituencies and beyond. It is a privilege for me to be able to speak about the role of the new Office for Investment, a joint venture between No. 10 and the Department for International Trade, to cement the UK as a global hub for investment.
The UK’s approach to investment is driven, and needs to be driven, for the reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford laid out, from the top—from the Prime Minister—who is showing the world that the UK is open to investment, and that Global Britain is a vision and a reality, not just rhetoric. As we seek to build back better in the wake of covid-19, we have to use our newfound freedom to go further and faster than ever to drive jobs and growth across the country.
The Government are determined to secure more investment opportunities in order to level up every region and nation of the UK with new jobs and businesses. The Office for Investment is very much focused on the levelling-up agenda, as the whole of Government needs to be.
We do not in any way want to surrender the power, attraction and magnetism of London and the south-east. When I was Minister for Investment, the majority of investments into the regions came as a secondary investment from companies that had previously invested, often, into London and the south-east. This is about keeping the best of what we have. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford said—she may even have understated the point—not only are we the leading investment destination in Europe, but by size we are probably the most attractive foreign direct investment economy in the world. Only the United States and China-Hong Kong have higher levels of FDI. We know that the FDI tends to lead to more research and development; it leads to more exports; and it leads to higher wages, which we would all support.
The Office for Investment lies at the heart of making that happen, by identifying and tearing down the barriers faced by top-tier investors. It sends a big signal, which is important, and it is tied to the Prime Minister, but the aim is not that it should grow into a behemoth. It is a very small, strategic group, working, through my colleague Lord Grimstone, with DIT, which, in various guises over the years and now as a dedicated trade Department, has been at the heart of delivering the offer to investors. The Office for Investment is bringing that signal, with the imprimatur of the Prime Minister. By being at the top of Government, it brings the convening power that only the Prime Minister’s Office has across the rest of Whitehall. As colleagues have suggested, this is about having a coherent offer. It is pointless to have a great initiative here if a very slow response elsewhere ruins the pitch, which should be carefully crafted and prepared, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford pointed out.
It is estimated by industry that in the first three months of 2021 alone, the UK FinTech sector—my hon. Friend highlighted the importance of venture—raised more than £2 billion in more than 100 investment deals. How are we going to be successful in the long term? It seems to me that science, innovation and technology—and I would include education in the piece—are at the heart of how we shall deliver competitiveness for the UK in the longer term. That is at the heart of our offer. Venture is so important. Even last year, in the pandemic, we saw another rise in venture investment into the UK. It is creating that science, innovation and culture here, and having a strong educational offer that brings in the brightest people from around the world, that all adds to the UK having a uniquely favourable role to play. Then what is needed is to put in place the funding to make this the best place in the world from which to start one of those businesses and grow to scale.
We want to put in place those factors and the finance. I think that NASA called the growth path for businesses the “valley of death”. We want to ensure that we have all the steps covered going forward. That is why it is so important that we look to partner with others—the Office for Investment plays a critical role in that—and that the Treasury and others show flexibility in the new sovereign investment partnership with the UAE, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford rightly highlighted. It is precisely in order to put such funds in place to support UK business that the OFI can deliver in a way that we have perhaps not seen before.
The Office for Investment will help drive forward our recovery to the benefit of people up and down the UK. It comprises a crack team of specialists who are working hard to land big investment opportunities. The OFI is there to help influence the overall environment but, in terms of particular projects, it is aimed at the top end. The aim is not to fall. It is working hard to land those big opportunities, while continuing to uphold the highest standards in scrutiny and security. As has been said, officials report directly to my good friend Lord Grimstone, in his role as joint Minister for Investment at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the DIT. The Office for Investment will bring together the best in the business from across Government and around the country to drive forward our investment-led recovery.
The Office for Investment is already delivering results. It was great to hear from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) about the thousands of jobs that have been created in Northern Ireland, but we want to go further. That is why we are setting up a DIT trade hub in Belfast to ensure that Her Majesty’s Government are working closely with Invest Northern Ireland in a more effective way, to ensure that the global reach of the UK Government and the staff we have in more than 110 countries can maximise the investment that comes into Northern Ireland.
We have seen the UAE investment. We hope we will also see investment from other high-growth markets. If I had to think of what DIT’s fundamental role is, it would probably be hitching or aligning—whatever word we choose—the UK with the fastest growing parts of the world. That is what we have the opportunity to do, and we have to use our flexibility. In the same way that that flexibility has allowed us to lead Europe in vaccines, we have to ensure that every time we make the same brave judgments and create the conditions to deliver success.
I should give my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford a minute to reply, but are there any questions I should pick up on?
Graham Stuart
Okay. I think I have touched on the levelling-up point. It is facilitating and helping to package the offer around the country. That is why we have our high potential opportunities scheme, whether that is rail in Doncaster or life sciences in other parts of the country.
I think we have dealt with the fledgling sectors and their importance. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford. She was right to say it is beyond my purview to set out domestic policy, as DIT is entirely internationally focused. However, I am sure colleagues have heard her recommendations of creating frameworks that incentivise more UK investment in those ventures. My hon. Friend asked how the single front door will be resourced. The OFI will continue to be small, elite and strategic, not a big organisation. It relies for most of the work on DIT and BEIS and other Departments across Government, but has that convening and co-ordinating power, with the authority of the Prime Minister behind it.
I think that is enough from me, Mr Paisley. I am delighted to participate in this debate, and it is fantastic to see colleagues getting behind the Office for Investment and all the opportunities it brings to raise livelihoods and the quality of life across the nation.
Ian Paisley (in the Chair)
As much as I would like to give the Member, Julie Marson, a minute to wind up, I am not able to under the rules for the 30-minute debates. I know she is more than happy with that and does not take it personally from me in the Chair.
Question put and agreed to.
Elective Surgical Operations: Waiting Lists
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Esther McVey (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members participating physically and virtually that they must arrive for the start of debates in Westminster Hall. Members are expected to remain for the entire debate. I also remind Members participating virtually that they are visible at all times to each other and to us in the Boothroyd Room. If Members attending virtually have any technical problems, they should email the Westminster Hall Clerks’ email address. Members attending physically should clean their spaces before they use them and as they leave the room, and take the wipes with them and bin them. I also remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Westminster Hall. Members attending physically who are in the later stages of the call list should also use the seats in the Public Gallery and move to the horseshoe when seats become available.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered waiting lists for elective surgical operations.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms McVey. Covid-19 has had a “calamitous impact” on patient access to surgical care. That is the view of the Royal College of Surgeons of England and it is what I want to focus on today. The Government need to receive that a message loud and clear. It is a message that needs to be repeated time and again, that cannot and should not be ignored, and that resonates with millions of people. I look forward to the response from the Minister, who I know takes this matter seriously.
The Government are not responsible for covid, but it is the Government’s responsibility to mitigate its effects through a variety of interventions. The question is whether they have fulfilled that responsibility. I imagine that the independent public inquiry will help us pin down that particular question. Let us hope that, as and when it happens, it is independent and full. The Royal College of Surgeons represents about 30,000 members in the UK and worldwide and, in this respect, it has a pretty good insight into the current calamitous situation facing millions of people, as it puts it.
I am sure it will be helpful if I contextualise the current situation facing patients. The most recent waiting time statistics published by NHS England on 15 April 2021 are worrying, but if taken with the hidden statistics, the position becomes almost overwhelming in magnitude. That is the challenge for the NHS, the Department of Health and Social Care, NHS England and, of course, for the Government’s commitment to ensure that the NHS gets all the resources it needs, as promised by the Prime Minister. I know that trusts and clinical commissioning groups, as well as NHS England, Public Health England, the Department of Health and Social Care and other NHS-related bodies have worked hard over the past year to ensure that services are being delivered as best they can, notwithstanding the unprecedented circumstances. My reason for initiating this debate is to highlight issues of concern. It is a challenge for us all.
What do the statistics say? A record 4.7 million patients were waiting for hospital treatment in February 2021. There were nearly 400,000 patients waiting for more than a year, which compares with just 1,643 people waiting for more than a year in February 2020. That is a significant rise, if ever there was one. Only 64.5% of patients waiting for hospital treatment were treated within 18 weeks in February against the Government’s target of 92%, which was last achieved five years ago. In total, 387,885 people are now waiting for more than 18 weeks. Those patients are our constituents. Each and every one of us will have numerous patients or would-be patients affected by this dire situation.
In my clinical commissioning group area, which covers my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), there were 1,374 people who had been waiting a year or more to be seen in February, compared with eight in April last year. It is a huge increase. All specialities are affected, but notable ones are ophthalmology, trauma and orthopaedics. It is important to note that what is not included is the impact on overdue follow-up activity and routine surveillance outside referral treatment.
We cannot overestimate the strains and stresses that such waiting puts on patients and their families, who do not know whether they will get the operation that is needed, or when it will happen. That point about what the situation means for patients was clearly made by the Royal College of Surgeons. There is a breakdown from NHS England, by specialty, which illustrates the situation that we and, more importantly, millions of our constituents face. In the trauma and orthopaedics surgical specialty that I have mentioned, more than 600,000 people are waiting, including 288,000 who have been waiting for 18 weeks or more and 84,000 who have been waiting a year for treatment. The percentage treated within 18 weeks, compared with the 92% target, is 52%. The figures are much the same for general surgery: 394,000 people waiting, with 60% treated within 18 weeks. I will not go through all the figures—I think hon. Members get the gist.
Such waits affect people in a variety of ways, mentally and physically. There is the obvious issue of pain that can be persistent, draining and debilitating for month after month. Also, of course, there are psychological effects such as distress or worry about deterioration in health, and concerns about the impact on a person’s employment status and the financial costs that might follow from the loss of a job, and subsequent loss of income. Of course, there will be an impact on family members or carers, who in turn have to cope or deal with the impact on the patient. There is the worry that an extended wait for surgery will bring more risks of deterioration in the patient’s condition. In certain situations the patient might need more complex surgery later. Moreover, there is always the concern that in certain circumstances a patient might die while waiting for an operation or other intervention. Those are serious, substantive and worrying issues that we, and particularly patients, must all face.
The parlous state of pre-covid waiting lists has made the covid situation worse, but it is not just a question of the impact of covid on lists. There is also the matter of underlying issues faced by the NHS, which covid has greatly exacerbated. In November 2020, making a comparison with 2019, the Health Foundation estimated that there were 4.7 million “missing patients”, as it calls them, who have not been referred for treatment. In other words, if 75% of those patients were included, the waiting list could grow to 9.7 million in 2023-24. That simply reaffirms the point that I made earlier about the need to plan now.
Many people have not referred themselves during covid to their GP. Getting a slot has often been challenging, to say the least. That element could become a significant factor in relation to cancer surgery: it has been estimated that the number of patients with suspected cancer referrals fell by 350,000 compared with the same period two years ago. That point was made not only by the Royal College of Surgeons but by other health-related organisations. The Royal College of Surgeons is not an outlier, and if the Government do not recognise the calamitous situation that patients now face, they will be ill-equipped to resolve it. I do not suggest that they are in danger of putting their head in the sand; but they are, if they are not careful, in danger of underestimating the scale of the crisis facing the country.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
I take my hon. Friend’s point about the Government not putting their head in the sand, but I think he referred to the need to plan. Is the real issue that while perhaps they are not putting their head in the sand they need to demonstrate that they are starting to plan right now?
Peter Dowd
That is a fair point, and I will touch on it later. I know that the Minister is well aware of the situation and has his own challenges in getting the point home to his colleagues in the Treasury, among others. We will give him the support that he needs when he has those conversations.
In terms of support to weather this crisis, the Government cannot put the brakes on this vital area of public expenditure. Given the figures I have outlined, it is better to pre-empt this tsunami, because once it comes, it will be all the more damaging. Putting it right after the fact will be more expensive, more difficult and lives will be in danger, not to mention the ongoing economic impacts for the nation. If we have learnt anything from the covid-19 crisis, it is the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) that assessment and planning, followed by focused, comprehensive action, are required.
I have set out the issues as many in the health field have them set out. They are not my figures, they are not made up, they are in the public domain. The Minister knows the organisations concerned, as do hon. Members, so I will not list them.
I have attempted to be as concise and factual as possible and to set the scene, but there is a second element: how the issue can be tackled. The rest of my time will be spent on that. Again, this is not me making this up—is is not the hon. Member for Bootle’s version. It is, in a sense, the health organisations’ view. In this respect, the Royal College of Surgeons has set out a clear way in a comprehensive fashion. Other royal colleges and health organisations have expressed their views too. I have no doubt that the Minister will listen to those voices, which will be helpful and constructive. However, they are also unambiguous in their view of the need for the Government to act now with specific proposals that go beyond a balance-sheet approach. I believe the time for details and proposals is fast approaching.
I want to highlight four recommendations. The first is increasing NHS bed capacity. For many years in the run-up to the pandemic, the NHS was far too close to capacity. It was running hot, to use that phrase. International comparisons, which I acknowledge do not tell the full story, but do give a partial story, show that the UK has 2.5 hospital beds per 1,000 people, which is well below the OECD average of 4.7, and behind countries such as Turkey, Slovenia and Estonia. Remember, beds have been reduced from 108,000 in 2010-11 to 95,000 in 2021.
Secondly, during the pandemic the Royal College of Surgeons of England called for the setting up of green or covid-light sites with a separation of elective surgery from emergency admissions. As the college says, there is, “evidence of the risks to patients if covid-19 is contracted during or after surgery, including a greater risk of mortality and pulmonary complications”. In this regard, covid-light sites are critical to process ongoing planned surgery, given that patients and staff are segregated from situations where those who have the virus are treated. In addition, there is a regime whereby patients self-isolate and test negative before any surgical intervention is in operation. Meanwhile, staff without symptoms are regularly tested.
The third recommendation is for surgical hubs. During the pandemic, professionals have worked in partnership to provide mutual aid during periods of intense pressure, thereby enabling a seamless process of surgical intervention. Because of the multi-agency, multidisciplinary co-operation, trusts have also been able to designate certain hospitals as surgical hubs. As such, a capacity for particular types of elective procedures has been facilitated through skills and resources coming together in one place in covid-secure environments. While this hub model, as it is called, is not a total solution, it is none the less a practical way to enable many geographies and surgical specialities such as orthopaedics and cancer to work together.
The fourth recommendation is support for patients, and I touched on that earlier. Again, the Royal College of Surgeons has welcomed the prioritisation of patients in NHS England’s 2021-22 priorities and operational planning guidance. None the less, I agree that we need to go further and provide more guidance about how to develop and expand the options to address those waiting longest, and to ensure that health inequalities are tackled throughout the plan.
In my view, there should also be cross-departmental work on more comprehensive support for those directly affected by covid isolation requirements and people whose livelihood is threatened by longer waiting lists. Before I go on to summarise the four recommendations I have just put to Members, I emphasise that I am aware, and appreciate, that NHS England and NHS Improvement have been working on an elective recovery frame- work covering workforce logistics, clinical prioritisation, patient focus reviews, waiting list validation and patient communication. I welcome that, as will other hon. Members. I acknowledge that the NHS has completed almost 2 million operations and other elective care in January and February this year, and non-urgent surgery times have begun to recover.
In summary, there are four recommendations arising out of the narrative. Recommendation one: the Government should urgently invest in increasing bed and critical care bed capacity across England. Recommendation two: the Government should consolidate covid-light sites in every integrated care system region, and ensure that at least one NHS hospital acts as a covid-light site in each integrated care system in England. Recommendation three: the Government should widen adoption of the surgical hub model across all English regions for appropriate specialities, such as orthopaedics and cancer. Recommendation four: all integrated care systems should urgently consider what measures can be put in place as soon as it is practical to support patients facing long waits for surgery. I would like to put on record my thanks to the Royal College of Surgeons for its advice, information and support in relation to this matter.
Finally, the whole question of workforce-related issues—numbers, pay, conditions at work—needs a comprehensive, fair, equitable and inclusive review. The Secretary of State can initiate a wholesale review of organisational structures in the NHS in the middle of this crisis, which is causing angst and concern across the NHS—we cannot pretend that is not happening. He can therefore initiate a review of the terms that I have suggested.
Many lessons need to be learned from this crisis. I stress the value, commitment and professionalism of all staff in the NHS. Staff across all professions, disciplines and sectors are feeling drained after a year of hard, unrelenting work and we need to thank them for that. Without them, in particular, this country would be in an even worse social and economic predicament than it already is. We owe it to them to ensure that they get all the support they need to support the rest of us. Who could disagree with that?
Esther McVey (in the Chair)
Before I call Back Benchers to speak, I remind Members that in this 90-minute debate we will be calling the Front Benchers no later than 3.40 pm, and obviously Peter Dowd will be winding up again after the Minister.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) on securing this very important debate. I fear many of us will end up repeating some of his points, but hopefully I shall be digging into one or two of those points in a bit more depth.
I start by paying tribute to and thanking our incredible NHS staff up and down the country—not least in my constituency—for their incredible commitment, resilience and hard work. Frankly, they have all gone well above and beyond what they are paid to do and what they signed up for throughout this pandemic, both in treating those with coronavirus and in rolling out the phenomenal vaccination programme. Also, despite what we are discussing today, we must not forget that urgent treatment, urgent surgery and A&E visits were still taking place throughout the pandemic. We must not forget that, so a heartfelt thanks to them.
We often hear that the NHS has coped throughout the pandemic. Indeed, we did not see those awful scenes that we saw in Italy of people being treated in corridors and makeshift tents. I would say, though, that the NHS has coped, but at what cost? We have heard the startling figures of 4.7 million people waiting for treatment. We know that about 2.3 million of those are for elective surgery, and there are all sorts of estimates, of anywhere between 4 million and 6 million or 7 million hidden patients, or those who have not yet necessarily presented. There is that pent-up demand for treatment. We know that two thirds of those waiting for treatment have been waiting for more than 18 weeks, and just shy of 400,000 have now been waiting for over a year. As has already been outlined, the impact on patients’ quality of life, in terms of mental health and excess deaths, cannot be overstated, but I would also like to touch on the workforce impact, before moving to solutions and finance.
As the hon. Member for Bootle has stated, it is estimated that approximately half of those with cancer did not contact their GP in the first wave. In fact, I heard a story the other day, via a friend of a friend, about somebody whose cervical smear test was cancelled last year. She was trying to contact her GP with symptoms earlier this year, and was fobbed off. She has now been discovered with stage 4 cervical cancer. I suspect that those stories will be replicated up and down the country. Macmillan Cancer Support has estimated that there are 15,000 missing diagnoses. We all know the importance of early diagnosis. I used to work for a cancer charity and in a pharmaceutical sector that had a big interest in oncology. We all know that surgery, often combined with early chemotherapy and radiotherapy, is absolutely critical in improving life chances and sometimes in being curative.
On the subject of hip and knee replacements, we know that the second and third most common operations are hip and knee replacements. The vast majority of patients needing that kind of surgery have osteoarthritis. Again, waiting lists in those areas have gone up exponentially. It is clear from talking to health service leaders on the ground that these cases are not necessarily in the priority category, which is understandably where cancer resides. As we have heard, though, there is an impact on quality of life, in terms of pain and reduced mobility. A survey by Versus Arthritis found that over 50% of those waiting had increased pain and reduced mobility, and more than three quarters experienced a deterioration in mental health and wellbeing. The longer-term impacts on the NHS and, critically, the social care sector, which was already struggling and on its knees, will be huge. The direct and indirect cost implications, therefore, will be huge, not to mention further complexity from late surgery.
Although this debate is about surgery, it would be remiss of me not to mention mental health. The Minister knows that I have a personal interest in and passion for mental health. We all know that mental health waiting times were pretty dire before the pandemic, particularly for children and young people. Now they are worse still. I am hearing from parents week in week out about not just children, but young people—often those who have crossed from the CAMHS age to being young adults—who cannot access services and are waiting a year or more for treatment. Again, without early intervention and action on these problems now, we are storing up problems further down the line. We know from the Royal College of Psychiatrists survey that two fifths of those waiting for treatment have ended up contacting crisis services. That is not the best way to treat people with mental health conditions. The hon. Member for Bootle mentioned excess deaths, and modelling from the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies suggests that we could have 18,200 or so excess deaths that are not covid-related. I implore the Minister to make sure that we start to count excess deaths that are not covid-related. At the moment they are hidden by the covid figures, but I suspect that these delays to treatment are causing a huge number of excess deaths.
The other big issue that I want to talk about is the workplace impact. We know that staff morale is through the floor at the moment. I recently had a meeting in south-west London with other south-west London MPs, organised by the local Royal College of Nursing branch, at which we talked to nurses. I heard from one after the other about how they are struggling in terms of their mental wellbeing and morale. We know from an RCN survey that a third of its members are considering leaving. We already had huge numbers of vacancies in nursing and other parts of the NHS before this pandemic, and the turnover will increase. I have made the case, as have many Opposition Members, for a better pay settlement for our NHS workers—1% is frankly an insult and a pay cut, as we keep hearing again and again. I implore the Minister once again: pay is important, but so is greater support for NHS workers’ mental health and wellbeing. I know that local NHS leaders are trying to do what they can, but further support and a commitment from the Minister would be welcome.
Finally on the impacts, I want to touch on health inequalities. Covid has massively exposed the health inequalities in our country. The thing that I fear most is that those who know how to shout the loudest and navigate the system, and have access to the sort of remote technology that is being increasingly used, will be able to access the treatment they need. I say that as the MP for a relatively affluent part of London, where I suspect a higher than average number of people have access to private healthcare and health insurance, and will be able to get treated through that route. Those who have been worst hit by covid will be worst hit by these waiting lists.
On solutions, I have touched on the need to treat our staff better in terms of pay and mental health support, and reduce the turnover. Importantly, we need to give staff time to recover. That is what I keep hearing from the chief executives of hospital trusts and community trusts on the ground: they need time to recover.
That leads me to my second point on the solutions. I would love to hear the Minister explain why the block contracts with the independent sector ended at the end of March. I would have thought that continuing to use independent sector capacity in the short term would help. A number of the stakeholders who briefed us for today’s debate have raised concerns about the fact that independent sector provision is largely concentrated in the south-east, London, the south-west and the east of England. That is not ideal and could exacerbate the inequalities that I have talked about, but something is better than nothing. If it helps to reduce the pressure on the NHS, it is important that it is looked at as a solution.
Thirdly, I would like to talk about transparency. We need an honest discussion with the public about these waiting lists, and clear reporting about the waiting times for the different waiting lists. We have talked about support for patients who are waiting for treatment, and good, clear, regular communication is an important part of that. I mentioned the need for transparency about excess deaths as a result of people waiting for treatment. The Government need to level with the public if there are tough choices to be made around the prioritisation of what treatment people will get within a certain period of time, or if they will have to travel for treatment. They need to be up front and honest with the public, because that is the only way we will maintain public trust.
That relates to a point that I want to make about communication. We must continue to communicate with the public about whether it is safe to go to hospital for treatment, and we must look at how we engage hard-to-reach groups that might not be embracing some of the digital technology that is increasingly being used to improve efficiency, not just because of infection control measures.
There must be better local collaboration. I want to thank the two acute hospitals that serve my constituency: Kingston Hospital and West Middlesex University Hospital, which are part of South West London and St George’s Mental Health NHS Trust, and London North West University Healthcare NHS Trust respectively. I know they are working incredibly hard on community diagnostic hubs and the surgical hubs that we have talked about, and they are ensuring we have covid-light sites, and so on, in line with the NHS operational guidance. That is to be welcomed, championed and supported. We have touched on having greater support for patients waiting for treatment.
NHS providers have said that we need a bold, transformative approach to tackle these waiting lists, and ultimately that will need to be supported by cash. I will pre-empt the Minister, who will stand up and say, “We have committed £4 billion”—I am sorry to steal his lines. Yes, that is fantastic and to be welcomed, but last autumn the Health Foundation estimated that we will need about £10 billion to deal with the backlog.
We saw in the late 1990s and the early 2000s that the way to bring down waiting lists is huge injections of cash. The Chancellor said he would give the NHS whatever is needed. We know that a lot of these problems come from an underlying lack of funding in the NHS over the long term and that, for four years, the NHS has not met the target in the NHS constitution that 92% of patients should wait no longer than 18 weeks to start elective treatment. That was an underlying problem pre-pandemic, but it has been exacerbated. That is why at the last general election the Liberal Democrats suggested that we should raise income tax by a penny in the pound specifically for the NHS and social care.
I am sure that the Minister has the Chancellor on speed dial, just like the former Prime Minister does, and I know that the Secretary of State has the Chancellor on speed dial. I implore him to make the case for the cash injection needed to tackle waiting times and improve the health of the nation. I am sure he does not need my help, but I and the Liberal Democrats stand ready to help him to make the case, just as the hon. Member for Bootle has already offered.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak in the debate. I intend to make some constructive comments and look forward to the Minister’s response. I thank the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) for setting the scene so very well and reflecting the opinion that we all have. The Minister does not have responsibility for health in Northern Ireland, but I will give him a couple of examples from Northern Ireland as they are replicated elsewhere.
As the hon. Member said, the figures, which we are all aware of, were clearly in the press last week. I had the opportunity to ask the Secretary of State about them yesterday. I did so because of the backlog of operations—I mentioned tonsillitis and children waiting for their adenoids to be removed—with waiting lists growing not just here in the mainland but indeed across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Those who have spoken have mentioned the concerns and pressures that I have, and they will be reiterated by those who come after. The Secretary of State in replying said that £7 billion would be made available—the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) will be interested in that figure—and through the Barnett consequentials we in Northern Ireland will get some benefit.
The Secretary of State did acknowledge that there is an absolutely massive backlog, but I think that as we slowly get out of covid-19 through the vaccine roll-out—we put on record our thanks to the Minister and the Government for all they have done on that—we need a strategy in place that addresses the backlog of those waiting to be seen. From waiting lists to see consultants to surgery dates being pushed back, coronavirus has brought us from teetering on the brink of surgical collapse to being under the rubble. It is as serious as that, certainly in Northern Ireland, where the waiting lists are gross. The Secretary of State referred to how it is a problem not just in England but in every region in the United Kingdom. We welcome how he and the Government recognise the problems, but we look to the Minister, with no pressure whatsoever, to tell us what is going to happen and how the strategies will address the backlog.
The Secretary of State always tells me that he has regular contact with Health Ministers in the devolved Administrations. I know that he does, and I welcome that close contact, being on the phone every week—maybe two or three times a week—but I want to ensure that the strategy and the co-ordination are working across all the regions. I will give two examples to illustrate what the issues are.
One of those examples happens to be from one of my own staff, who has two wee girls. One of them is a five-year-old, Lily, who was choking on her food and her drink. After another bout, her mum looked into her throat and saw that her tonsils were the size of golf balls. Those are her words. For a wee girl of only five years old, one would panic right away. She rang the GP, was seen and got an urgent referral to ENT. She then paid to go private, which meant she had to borrow money. Not everybody can do that. She was told that the waiting list was over a year long just to get a consultation. She went to the consultant and was sent home with a sleep monitor, to see where the problems were, which would report back to the doctor. She gave back the monitor after three nights, as requested, and was contacted within two days to say that Lily needed urgent surgery, as her oxygen levels had dipped dangerously low during the night.
Lily’s mother rang the hospital and was told she would have to have surgery in the first urgent slot in April. We are more than two weeks in from the beginning of April, and it has not happened. Lily is still waiting for her surgery and her mother has installed a baby monitor, which speaks, with an on-and-off movement. What a way to live a life, heart in mouth, on eggshells over a five-year-old, listening to the baby monitor all through the night, almost afraid to sleep in case of missing something.
The stress to the family resonates across every one of them. Simple surgery would rectify that. Despite being first on the urgent list, Lily is still waiting. I know the Minister is not responsible for that. The hon. Member for Bootle, who set the scene and had lots of examples, did not go into them all. I suspect that he would have examples very similar to the one I am referring to. Lily’s mother has sleep-interrupted nights to ensure that her child is breathing. A simple procedure would be the solution but, for some unknown reason, the year has passed and we do not seem to be any further ahead.
My second example is a 42-year-old market trader who has worn kneecaps. His business employs 13 local people. He has told me that unless he gets his operation, he will have to close one of his shops, as he cannot physically load and unload the vehicles, and he is losing business. The impact of not getting an operation in time not only affects children but those involved in industry and the economy.
The hon. Member for Twickenham referred to cancer diagnosis. I know of people who had cancer in the past year and, unfortunately, because they did not have their operations, they are no longer here. That is a fact. When the hon Lady mentioned that, I could relate to it and understand, because I know people who are not here today because they were unable to get an operation. I understand that the Government have a responsibility to look after the covid situation, but the time is coming when we need to look beyond that. We need to have a strategy in place, and I look to the Minister for a response on that.
With regard to knee replacements, that 42-year-old market trader is an example of those who need it right now, not years in the future. I also make that point for cataract surgery. Lots of people are not just waiting for the surgery, they are waiting for the appointment to diagnose when it can be done, knowing that they are going blind. Simple cataract surgery can change their lives with real, dramatic and positive effect. We need to be on the ball with these things.
I understand the reference the hon. Member for Twickenham made to mental health. I have seen in my constituency the effect on the mental health of children, some as young as primary age. Schools are suffering tremendous mental health problems. This problem does not only affect Northern Ireland. Just under 4.7 million patients are waiting for hospital treatment in England, as of February 2021. That is the highest number since the referral for treatment data series started in 2007. Although a relatively sharp decrease in numbers waiting was observed from April to June 2020, the numbers have since increased to that record level of 4.7 million in February 2021. It seems likely that the dip from April to June 2020 was due to limited new referrals during the first wave of the coronavirus pandemic.
I always try to be positive when I come to debates. We get the background and examples to set the scene and show what the problems are, but everyone who has spoken so far has very honestly and admirably put forward solutions. I think we are all in the business of solutions. It is about the glass half full rather than half empty.
We need investment. We also need access to private clinics—at some time we will have to look to them—and facilities, and we need action now. With every day that passes, more people are in need; more are in pain and more are in fear, and we must get a hold on the situation. The lists continue to grow as more people’s names are added.
We need a clear strategy that prioritises the backlog of elective surgery. We need the £7 billion that the Secretary of State referred to in the Chamber, which is extra money for this particular purpose. We want to see how that pans out. We need to employ more staff, and extra surgeons as well. What do we have to do to do it? There must be a plan. We have a responsibility. As my party’s health spokesperson, I am very keen to see these matters addressed. I know the Government can do it. If they put their minds to the issue, they can make it happen, but each and every one of us in the House wants to see it sooner rather than later.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair this afternoon, Ms McVey. I extend my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd), who opened the debate so well.
Once more the NHS has been pushed to its limits these past few months, and once more it has delivered an unprecedented response. Every single person working for the NHS has strained every sinew at every hour of every day and night to support as many people and save as many lives as they could. I know how staff in York’s NHS services have stretched their known capability, skill and knowledge, have extended their capacity to care and support, and have served our community without complaint or restraint. For that reason, I echo hon. Members who have said that those staff need to be justly rewarded with a well-overdue pay rise.
At York Teaching Hospital, 1,974 covid-19-positive patients were treated between September 2020 and the end of March 2021, in a very challenging clinical environment, where infection control measures tested staff and the system. The hospital is already a challenged site, and that experience indicates that conversations must commence on the future of the hospital estate in the city. It serves a growing population, and I hope that the Minister would clock that and be open to early discussions about how, over the next decade, we can develop plans to meet the health needs of our city. Already, year in, year out, over the winter crisis it is challenged, but covid-19 has really pushed it to its limits.
As the latest phase of the crisis abates, the next mountain must be conquered. The pressure it causes is relentless. Elective surgery, which was stood down at the beginning of the pandemic, continued through the rest of the period. However, we know that the number of cases has built up.
In York, the independent sector is used to provide some of the cancer care. Good cancer networks were built with the local establishment. It would be good if the Government would publish the amount they have spent on contracts with the independent sector throughout the pandemic. Has it been at cost or at an escalated cost to the state? We need that information so that we can understand the extent of the use of the independent sector and so that lessons can be learnt about the need for national contingency in public health facilities, and about how the private sector is drawn on and whether there are better models out there for procuring services.
While staff have had to be redeployed to respond to covid-19 and address clinical priorities, which is absolutely right, York managed to continue with its planned surgery through the national phase 3 elective services restoration period up until March 2021. It has done really well: it has delivered 96% of the planned elective in-patient activity—ordinary elective and day cases—and 108% of the planned out-patient activity. That equates to the delivery of nearly 3,000 ordinary electives, 36,000 day cases and nearly 400,000 out-patient appointments over the six-month period. That is an incredible feat, because of the constraints—indeed, due to the sharp rise in covid cases in York, particularly following the Christmas period, 564 elective procedures were delayed—but those figures dwarf into insignificance compared with the scale of what is needed now. Nationally, there is a reckoning that it could take about five years to clear the list. And of course the Minister is planning a reorganisation of health services in the midst of all that, which may have some implications. I trust that, in his response to the debate, he can say how that will be bridged.
As we went into the pandemic there were already significant backlogs in elective care, as a result of austerity measures—cuts—being applied to services. That has had its implications in York. We have a high level of recruitment and retention in York—the vacancy rate is just 6%—but clearly there are implications due to the rationing that was applied. As a result, our clinical commissioning group, Vale of York, has applied rationing to services, and I want to dwell on that for a moment, because many procedures are no longer available in the city, but also many involve restricted access for those with a BMI over 30—in the case of hip and knee replacement surgery, it has now been lifted to between 30 and 35—and for those who smoke. We know that that discriminates disproportionately against those who experience socioeconomic disadvantage.
I have debated the issue many times in the House, but to this day I hold, as does the Royal College of Surgeons, that these should be clinical decisions, and should not be based on algorithms to weigh the clinical risks. Of course we all understand that smoking and obesity lead to significantly higher risks in surgery, but far more needs to be done to support people with weight loss and smoking cessation. With surgery already significantly delayed because of the pandemic, to deny people access to a waiting list removes the clinical support that they need. They also need additional support to address the risk factors, not least because we know that, for many people who smoke or are overweight, that is the case because they are dealing with the presentation of their illness. For instance, they may not be able to exercise and mobilise because of pain, which makes them more susceptible to putting on weight—or perhaps because of stress and depression.
We need to see those issues addressed. We need to see far more intervention in the form of prevention at these points, but also it needs to be understood that people should not have to wait even longer for the elective surgery that they need. We know that, over the last 13 months, there has been a serious drop in the number of people accessing diagnostic tests, out-patient appointments and other clinical services, so they are set back even further. And of course it is not just those cohorts of patients who are affected; we know that the effects have gone to so many other areas. As we have heard, the impact on cancer diagnosis has been significant as well. We know that today there are many people living with undiagnosed conditions who will, when they present, have greater risk and poorer outcomes unless this situation is attended to urgently.
Altogether, the waiting lists could double—none of us knows exactly what will happen—for clinical procedures once community referrals catch up. That would just break the system and therefore we need to see more reparation being put in place. I know that the Minister is looking at those issues, but by the time someone receives surgery they are likely to have more complexities, more underlying health conditions and a poorer prognosis. As we have heard in the debate, approximately 18,000 people could also see premature mortality as a result of this. Of course, there is a significant loss to the economy, loss of jobs, loss of income, loss of lifestyle and loss of social connections, leading to mental health challenges as well. We need to make sure that during this period people have access to social prescribing and support for wider needs as well as their clinical needs.
Bearing that in mind, I want to dwell on the issue of diagnostic testing and the fact that attendance in some areas was already low. Will the Minister look at how specialist clinics and testing centres could be set up to screen the population? Just imagine if everyone who had their covid-19 vaccine had a thorough health MOT at the same time. That would have been transformative. I ask the Minister: what can be learned from the vaccine roll-out to be applied to screening programmes and out-patient backlogs, to ensure that the NHS gets back on track with the provision of services as they are needed, and perhaps as a model for the future, too?
I want to raise one more point before I return to elective surgery; that is the issue of research. Research has been significantly shelved over the last year. We know that surgical advances will assist by cutting waiting lists, reducing the risk of procedures and reducing the need for surgery in the first place. I urge the Minister to ensure that there is significant investment in clinical research, and that it is stepped up, not cut back.
To return to elective surgery directly, first, on staffing, we know that we have an ageing workforce and many of those who have stepped up this year are now stepping back. Other staff members are exhausted and, frankly, shattered by their experience over the past year, so we need to ensure that we see that growth in the workforce. I trust that NHS planning and commissioning of training will increase, and not just to ensure that we address the current crisis; that could be extended into the future shape of healthcare. We need to get those figures right and not see the famine and feast that we have often seen in the past—although I cannot quite remember a period of feast. However, we certainly need to see proper provision of staffing.
As for facilities, we cannot dismiss the fact that over the past decade, about 12,500 beds have disappeared from our NHS. Cuts do have consequences and we have paid heavily for that. This is an opportunity to look again at how we configure our services, both on the acute side and in rehabilitation, to ensure that facilities meet needs. All surgery carries risk, so critical care support must be available, but we also need to ensure that more is done to support rehabilitation centres of excellence. Often we see patients being discharged far too prematurely, only to bounce back into the system or not fare as well as they could have done, had they had more rehab before going home. I speak as a former physiotherapist, so obviously I am passionate about that, but it really does make a difference.
In the past, patients undergoing hip, knee and other orthopaedic procedures have often gone to rehabilitation centres. Some of those centres no longer exist. For us in our profession to put people through their paces and gain the confidence they need, we need to make sure that they have those skillsets before they are discharged home. That is because we know that when people get home, the biggest risk from those procedures is that they just sit in a chair and do not mobilise at the level that they could, which of course undoes all that has been achieved. What a waste of money, but also what a waste of opportunity in somebody’s life.
Community provision is still patchy and we know that the sufficiency is not there to give people the time and investment that they need in a domiciliary setting. Following elective surgery we need to optimise not just acute care but the rehabilitation process, and make sure that post-operative care is at an optimum.
Just before I close: as many have said, the numbers are significant, they have risen sharply and the situation requires significant investment. We are moving into a new model of health provision over the next period. It is really important that we get it right and that we ensure that, before the legislation comes to the House later this year, we have the levers in place to address this form of care, locally as well as nationally. It cannot be business as usual. The next crisis is here and needs as much attention as the Minister and his team have given to the last.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms McVey. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) on securing this important debate. I agree with much of what has been said. I am particularly happy to follow my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), who has spoken so well about assessment, diagnostics and rehabilitation from a clinical perspective—a crucial factor to bear in mind.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about Northern Ireland. In my own work in Northern Ireland looking at health visiting services, the unique circumstances of Northern Ireland history and the ability to make difficult decisions about reconfiguration and so on and to move services on, as well as the legacy of the conflict, meant that there were some severe challenges making it more difficult for people working in Northern Ireland health services to catch up, even before the pandemic.
I pay tribute to the remarkable job done by the NHS, particularly my colleagues in Bristol, and the way that new pathways and new ways of working have been adopted so quickly. We must maintain and build on the innovation and flexibility that we have seen. As a former manager, one of my previous tasks was to try to get digital technology into the service some 10 years ago, looking particularly at dermatology. It was a gargantuan task. It was not bureaucracy and it was not people not wanting to do it that stopped it happening—it was the way the money works. The way the money works in the system does not always reward innovation. That is one of the things we need to learn from this particular crisis.
I also worked a lot with primary care to try to improve telephone communications, in the days before we had all heard the name Zoom. There is quite a lot of evidence about primary care telephone consultations and how they could help meet the demand for primary care, and about clinicians being willing to undertake them. Patients are often a bit reluctant to undertake them. The evidence has not always been clear. What a massive amount of research opportunity we have now to enable us to understand when people like telephone conversations, when they are helpful, how they support primary care and how we can have new levels of resource.
I know from older members of my family that, despite receiving a lot of phone calls—I have a lot of respect for GPs who have been making those calls—people still want to see people. They want that reassurance. So much of healthcare is about reassurance and making people feel more in control of their healthcare and that they understand what is happening. We need to bear that in mind as well.
We know that we have a large backlog, but we do not know how large. Others have given some estimates. I met leaders at the Bristol, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire clinical commissioning group last week. They are meeting NHS England this week to talk through the levels of backlog and the size of the recovery. My message to those leaders last week is the same as my message for the Minister: locally, we must have very honest, clear conversations about what that backdrop means. Figures of 5 billion, 7 billion and 10 billion mean nothing to local people. We want to understand the impact on our own healthcare system and what the size of the problem is. That openness and transparency—and involving local people in the difficult decisions that are now with us—is absolutely crucial. It is the only way forward.
I have long advocated open, transparent conversations with the health service, and a more locally accountable NHS. When the Minister is looking at his White Paper in the next few months, he might think about having locally elected leaders on the new integrated care partnerships, to bring some of the local democracy that we need, and the accountability of health services, to local people. Local people understand priorities. They understand what has happened. They understand that there is a huge cost and that difficult decisions have to be made. We need to involve them in those decisions. The answer, unfortunately, for some of this recovery is a huge uplift in staffing, facilities and, of course, money, but that must be offset against what happens if we do not ensure that. I know we are all keen to help the Minister do that.
I was a non-executive director during those days of the Labour Government in the early 2000s, when the effort needed to tackle waiting lists was absolutely phenomenal. There was an enormous effort at both strategic and operational level. The clinical and clerical assessment of the lists required control both from the centre and locally. I am told that regular assessment of the lists is being done in Bristol, but it requires more managerial, administrative and clinical staffing models. When phoning patients to see whether they still require treatment, sometimes people will have died. The people who are making the phone calls and contacting people on those lists need to be hugely sensitive. They need to have experience, and they need to be skilled.
Doing this sort of work is not a basic, low-level, ad hoc and temporary admin job. We need to train people properly to do it. They will be communicating difficult decisions and trying to secure an understanding of the level of need in a community. Sadly, during the covid crisis we have seen poor communications around “do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation” decisions. It is problematic having difficult conversations with people, but we have to trust patients and involve people, so let us learn some of those lessons.
I am old enough to remember the Tory Prime Minister who proudly told us in the late 1990s that we would not have to wait more than 18 months—imagine—for our treatment. We in the Labour party thought that we had banished those days to history. We do not want to go back. Our constituents deserve much better, and I am worried that we will go back to those days and to those terrible lists.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) said, we know that there is a resource issue. We will support the Minister in making those text messages, phone calls and emails—however he decides to communicate with his colleague in an up-front, honest and legal way. We will support him in those discussions with the Treasury. He needs to assure us that he understands the size of the problem, that he will be working with leaders locally, and that when those conversations are happening with NHS England and NHS Improvement, we as local Members of Parliament will have full access and an understanding of the level of need, demand and resource in our communities. That has been my challenge to my local leaders of the Bristol, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire clinical commissioning group. If they turn around and tell me they cannot tell me that because someone at NHS England tells them they cannot do so, I will get straight back to the Minister, whose phone number I have, by text message and email to demand answers.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
As a fellow Cheshire MP, it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms McVey.
Every Member who has contributed to the debate has spoken with great knowledge and sincerity about the challenge we face as a society. I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) for securing the debate and for his excellent introduction. As every Member has pointed out, he was right to say that we have record waiting lists. We should never forget that we had already seen a huge rise of over 40% in the decade before the pandemic. As some Members mentioned, it is possible that covid is masking an even worse situation. We know that the number of referrals plummeted around this time last year, as the NHS rightly focused all its intention on the pandemic.
As Members have said, we know that the NHS aims to ensure that no more than 8% of patients wait more than 18 weeks for treatment. That is a target that has not been met for five years, so this situation cannot be laid entirely at covid’s door. Indeed, just over a year ago, in February 2020, 17% of people on waiting lists had been waiting longer than 18 weeks. It is clear that the past year has had an impact, because the figure has now doubled to 35%.
Sadly, it is now the case that over a million people have waited longer than six months for hospital treatment. There are now 388,000 people waiting more than a year. Again, that is the highest number on record. That is nearly 400,000 people waiting for things such as knee and hip replacements. As Versus Arthritis points out, they
“are in extreme distress, with many struggling to cope with pain which is impossible to ignore, worsening mental health and reduced quality of life.”
My hon. Friend the Member for Bootle set out clearly some of the implications not just for physical pain, but for mental health and uncertainty about job prospects. My hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) eloquently set out the reduced outcomes and difficulties we will face if the process is not followed as well as we would like and patients enter the system at a later date.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle said, this is an issue that cannot and should not be ignored. He described the challenges as possibly overwhelming—an apposite description, given that the Government’s strategy for the last year has been to avoid the NHS being overwhelmed. As that challenge was met, we hope that this challenge will be met as well. He also made the important point that, if we do not get this right, it will cost us more in the long run and will have economic and as well as physical and social impacts. The lessons learned from the pandemic ring true in that respect as well.
When we look very closely at the figures, we see that around 18,000 people are now waiting longer than 18 months. The figures we have relate to people waiting more than a year. Obviously, I have discussed this with the Minister on previous occasions and we hope that we will get the official figures shortly. We must remember that at the moment, we only have details for people waiting over a year, but the information I have suggests that more than 175 people have been waiting for more than two years. Those figures are slightly out of date, as they are from January, but that is a horrendous situation and I hope it has got better in the last few months. If it has got worse, I hope and expect that the Minister will be on the phone to those trusts inquiring exactly why people are waiting over two years to receive their treatment.
The importance of dealing with the backlog quickly cannot be overstated, because of the likely pressure that will manifest itself over the coming months. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle said, the Health Foundation has estimated that there could be as many as 4.7 million missing patients. If only three quarters of those are referred to treatment, that would lead to a waiting list of 9.7 million people by 2023-24. Obviously, that is an estimate, but if the Minister has done his own calculation, can he tell us what it is?
Over the last year, the NHS has adapted fantastically to the challenges of covid in a way that has rightly won the respect of everyone in this place and in the country. That has meant decisions have been taken about how treatments should be prioritised. We have seen appointments cancelled, operations postponed and staff redeployed, but even with those challenges, the NHS managed to carry out 1.9 million operations in January and February this year, which Stephen Powis, NHS England’s medical director, said is
“a testament to the hard work and dedication of staff”.
I join him in paying tribute to those staff for delivering that. However, even with that fantastic effort—to put into context the challenge that we face—the number of routine operations in January was down 54% on last year and in February it was down 47%.
Thankfully, I think we are past the peak of the third wave and there are only just over 2,000 patients with covid in hospital, which is the lowest since last September. However, the NHS is still under enormous pressure, with so many people now waiting for treatment, stricter infection control measures and, as many Members have referred to, an exhausted healthcare workforce. We have to be realistic: this could take years to address unless there is a credible and costed plan in place at the earliest opportunity.
Modelling by the NHS Confederation suggests that the sustained impact of the pandemic will leave a backlog of care in excess of anything seen over the last 12 years and that to maintain any sense of control over its waiting list, the NHS will need to increase capacity considerably above levels that have previously been sustained. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) referred to the huge efforts that were made by the previous Labour Government to get waiting lists down. It seems that a strategy at least on a par with that will be needed.
The NHS Confederation has said:
“Without a comprehensive new plan, the government faces the…legacy of hundreds of thousands of patients left with deteriorating conditions”.
It warns that the additional £1 billion agreed in the spending review will not be enough to clear the backlog. The chief executive of the NHS Confederation Danny Mortimer said:
“health leaders are clear that the NHS will be recovering for years to come, and this must be appropriately resourced in the long-term.”
He called for
“investment in growing and maintaining the workforce”.
NHS Providers has said that the situation could take three to five years to resolve. Its chief executive, Chris Hopson, said:
“Trusts believe they can clear the backlog within a reasonable period of time”,
but that treating this like another waiting list initiative, relying on overtime and private sector use, will be insufficient. He said that the NHS will need to transform “how it provides care” and that the Government will need to provide
“the extra funding required to enable that transformation.”
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle set out, a number of practical steps can be taken to deliver transformation, but they come with a price tag. The Prime Minister was quick to pledge that the Government will ensure that the NHS has the funds it needs to beat the backlog, but how can we have confidence in him when he has already gone back on a promised pay rise for NHS staff? NHS England said that although the £1 billion fund will help, it will not be enough. Of course it will help and it is welcome, but helping is not the same as solving. Nobody, probably not even the Minister, believes that what is on the table represents a solution.
There is no doubt that the NHS has a monumental task ahead of it to restore services, meet demand and reduce the care backlogs, but it also must support staff and take steps to reduce inequality in access, experience and outcomes. Now is the time for the Government to deliver on their promise to deliver to the NHS whatever it needs. It certainly is not the time for another expensive reorganisation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South said. If that is the road we go down, it is important that patients’ voices are put front and centre of those new bodies, particularly if they are forced to deal with some of those extremely tricky issues.
As many Members said, 10 years of underfunding have left us in this precarious position. The challenge is there for the Minister. The experts say that we can tackle the backlog, but it will need funding. If the Minister can confirm any specific figures, that would be wonderful. I suspect we will not get that today, but at the very least will he confirm on the record that he agrees that the £1 billion that has been allocated so far is insufficient?
To pick up on what Chris Hopson, chief executive of NHS Providers, said about relying on the private sector, we know that huge sums were provided last year. As my hon. Friend the Member for York Central said, we have never had transparency about what that money was spent on. Can the Minister tell us how many NHS patients were seen in the private sector last year, and how many procedures were carried out using taxpayers’ money? I am sure that he is as keen as all of us to ensure that the best value has been achieved.
Many Members said that none of the backlog will be tackled if we do not have the staff to do it. A recent Institute for Public Policy Research report based on a YouGov poll of 1,000 healthcare professionals said that a third more nurses and midwives are leaving the NHS than a year ago. Those figures are scaled up across the workforce—that means 100,000 nurses and 8,000 midwives leaving. With 40,000-plus vacancies already, we cannot afford to lose one more, never mind 100,000 more.
Dame Donna Kinnair of the Royal College of Nursing said that that is
“The reality of a failure to properly invest in the nursing workforce”
and must be a
“wake-up call to the Government.”
It should indeed, especially when we are still waiting for the publication of the substantive long-term workforce plans to deliver a lasting solution to recruiting and retaining the workforce and ensuring there are enough skilled staff to provide safe and effective care now and in the future. That is why it is vital that Ministers bring forward a fully funded plan to tackle the backlog—we have been calling for that for a long time: an NHS rescue plan that will bring down waiting lists and ensure that patients can receive the quality of care that they deserve. As my hon. Friend the Member for York Central put it, we cannot carry on with business as usual.
Let me end with the important comments from Dr Rob Harwood, the chair of the British Medical Association’s consultants committee:
“Without further financial support and investment in increasing staffing numbers, patients will be waiting even longer for care, and there is a risk that patient care becomes unsafe the more exhausted staff become. The future of our NHS, already walking wounded, must not be put in jeopardy.”
The NHS is the jewel in our crown, but it needs protecting, sometimes as much as the patients it treats. We need financial support, a detailed people policy and a credible plan to deal with the backlog if we are to avoid coming back in 12 months to talk about an even worse situation.
Esther McVey (in the Chair)
I call the Minister, mindful that we will have a winding-up speech from Peter Dowd at the end.
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey.
May I start, as other hon. Members have done, by congratulating the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) on securing the debate on this hugely important subject? As colleagues have said, this subject is so important not just to hon. Members, but to all our constituents. Given its importance, I suspect that it will not be in 12 months’ time that we next debate it. I would hope that, in the coming weeks and months, we will continue to debate the progress on reducing waiting lists and getting waiting times down, because that is important. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman’s typically reasonable and measured tone. I know that he takes a close interest in these matters, working with the all-party parliamentary heath group. If it is helpful to him, I am happy to meet him outside the Chamber to have further discussions about exactly what he said.
I of course join hon. Members in paying tribute to the amazing work of all those who work in our NHS. Once again, I thank them for their tireless efforts throughout the pandemic. Like other hon. Members, I make no apology for reiterating those thanks every time I have the opportunity to do so.
As the hon. Gentleman set out, and as the House will know, our goal throughout the pandemic has been to protect the NHS and save lives. At the peak of the pandemic, we focused on caring for covid-19 patients, while seeking to continue to prioritise urgent treatments such as surgery for cancer and other life-saving operations. The temporary pauses in other elective activity, and the reduction in the volume of such activity, were put in place to limit the number of patients and to help prevent the NHS from being overwhelmed, as well as for infection control. We have to be very clear, however, as hon. Members have been, about the impact that that necessary action has had on many tens of thousands of our constituents. All hon. Members have alluded to the fact that their constituents have suffered not just pain, but anxiety, nervousness and the impact that such delays can have on mental health.
By the summer of 2020, the NHS had started to recover elective activity after the first wave. Having learned from the first wave, it was able to keep elective activity going at a higher level, albeit not as high as some might have wished, through the second and subsequent waves. The situation is looking better for our NHS: there has been a huge fall in hospitalisations and deaths from covid-19, as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), alluded to in his remarks, and the success of our vaccination programme means that more people now have longer-term protection from the virus.
Once again, the NHS has done incredible work in keeping as many services as possible going at a time of unprecedented strain. Despite the pressure of the pandemic, by December 2020, the NHS has recovered to carrying out nearly 80% of elective treatments compared with the previous year’s figures. As we continue on our journey to recovery, we must focus on addressing the pressures beyond covid that have been caused by the pandemic. To do that, we are providing the funding, the support for staff and the legal foundations to help our NHS build back better.
We as a Government, in partnership with the NHS, have turned our focus to recovering the activity that was lost following those necessary reductions in activity and, in some cases, the halting of elective treatments. As part of that, we encourage the public to please come forward, through campaigns such as “Help Us, Help You”, and to contact their GP if they are worried about symptoms, especially if they are potential cancer symptoms. The hon. Member for Bootle was absolutely right to highlight that this is not just about surgical procedures in an acute setting, but about the entire patient journey: getting people through the front door of their GP’s surgery; giving them a diagnosis or a provisional diagnosis on the phone, with diagnostic tests; and then the treatment that follows.
We know that waiting lists continue to grow for elective services, as all hon. Members have set out, with 4.7 million people currently waiting for treatment. Of course, we and the NHS are working incredibly hard to reduce that backlog. We will rightly continue to prioritise patients according to their medical needs as well as how long they have been waiting.
We have already seen promising recovery in services—the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston alluded to that—but it is also important that we recognise at this point, as hon. Members have done, the huge strain that staff and the NHS workforce have been under throughout this pandemic. As such, it is very important that in seeking to recover levels of activity, we do so in a way that enables those staff to have the time and space they need to recover physically and mentally from what they have been through.
I want to reassure hon. Members about the funding and the fact that there is a plan. That plan is being developed on the basis of evidence and pilots that we saw undertaken in London, for example, which I will turn to a moment. On 18 March, as part of the spending review, we announced a further £7 billion of funding for healthcare services. Over the next six months, the NHS will receive £6.6 billion to support that recovery. That comes on top of the funding increases that are already hard-baked into the NHS Funding Act 2020. At the last spending review, we announced an additional £1 billion investment to further kick-start recovery and begin addressing backlogs and tackling long waits. Looking at the shadow Minister, I reiterate from this Dispatch Box the words of the Prime Minister making it clear—very clear—that the NHS will have the resources and funding it needs to do the job.
As well as funding, we have been supporting the NHS to innovate because, as has been alluded to, funding alone is not the answer. We need to look at how we tackle the backlog, the care pathways and the approaches we adopt. That planning is already happening, working with the frontline. In elective surgery, the NHS is basing its approach on lessons learned from the London pilot programme that ran in October 2020 to redesign treatment pathways. Of course in that context I pay tribute to Professor Tim Briggs for his work on the Getting it Right First Time programme, which offers a huge opportunity to reform and improve the way we deliver care and those care pathways.
We have seen some great examples of innovation. I spoke to Tim Briggs this morning and he highlighted some of them, such as joint replacements and the impact that treatment can have on people. The Queen’s Hospital in Romford, the Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre in Oxford, the United Lincolnshire hospitals and the Royal Cornwall Hospital are all using innovative approaches to try to tackle that backlog. Croydon Elective Centre physically separated emergency and elective theatre units in what was the hospital’s blue zone, enabling it to run at 120% of pre-lockdown activity levels for routine procedures, including cancer, cardiac and hip operations. It is only one example, but it is an example of what the system is doing to innovate and try to get activity levels back to where we would like to see them.
During the pandemic last year, the out-patients programme avoided 18 million face-to-face appointments through the use of virtual appointments and reduced the number of unnecessary appointments, but I take the point made by the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) that there will always be some people or some people’s medical condition that will result in their wanting or needing to see a GP or a practitioner face to face.
On diagnosis, we are rolling out 44 community diagnostic hubs with the plan to deliver over 1 million additional scans and tests across CT, MRI, X-ray, ultrasound and ECGs. These are just examples, but these numbers are already helping the NHS to recover, and they have the potential to play a key part in the long-term approach to tackling waiting lists.
In the few minutes I have before the hon. Member for Bootle winds up, I will deal with some of the specific points he raised on behalf of the Royal College of Surgeons. On the first issue—urgently increasing bed capacity and critical care bed capacity—we continue to work with the NHS very closely to ensure we have sufficient beds to meet future demand, with hospitals flexing their bed capacity as required. It is important to note that one of the points Professor Briggs made to me is that the ability, with modern medicine and approaches, to tackle more elective procedures in day case surgery maximises the use of theatres and eases the pressure on beds. Where previously somebody might have been kept in overnight, the beds can be used for patients having procedures that require overnight stays.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the consolidation of covid-light sites in every ICS region and talked about widening the adoption of the surgical hub model across all English regions. NHS England continues to design and refine the future operating models in the light of ongoing levels of community infection. The London region pilot has been looking at exactly that model and testing it. We have to make sure it does the job and delivers the results, as we want this to be an evidence-based recovery plan, but the early indications are promising. Using surgical hubs and separating out elective services through hot and cold sites are key components of the London region pilot.
A number of Members rightly said that we must not lose sight of health inequalities in our plan and our approach to tackling the waiting list backlog. We believe that the accelerated restoration of elective services and innovations in primary care will play a key part in improving local health outcomes and tackling health inequalities. That is an explicit part of what I am looking at as I draw up the plan with colleagues.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman talked about ensuring that all ICSs urgently consider what measures can be put in place to support patients facing long waits for surgery. We continue to work very closely on this. The hon. Member for Bristol South is right that many people who are communicating with patients are doing an extremely challenging and sensitive job, so it is absolutely right that we give them the support they need to know how to do it to the best of their ability, so that they, just as much as the patients, do not find it any more difficult than it inherently is. Local systems have been asked to plan their recovery as quickly as possible and in a way that supports those patients through their waits.
On statistics, the shadow Minister was kind to me. He raised a point of order a couple of weeks ago about statistics and over 52-week waits, but he did so very gently. When answering written questions, we are required to use published data, and at the moment it is not cut in the way that he wanted, which is fortnightly or weekly— 52 to 53, 53 to 54 and so on. He raises an important point, and I will write to him shortly to set out what we can do to increase the transparency with that level of granular data in the coming months. Again on a point made by the hon. Member for Bristol South, it is absolutely right that everyone can see what the challenge is at a local level, what approach is being taken to address it working in partnership with those local systems, and what progress is being made against the targets and the backlog.
In the 10 seconds or so that I have before I hand over to the hon. Member for Bootle, let me say that recovery of NHS elective services is one of the greatest challenges, but also one of the greatest opportunities that we have to transform patient care. We are completely committed to building the NHS back better, learning the lessons from the pandemic and doing all we can to ensure that patients—our constituents—receive the best possible treatment as quickly as possible, and that we reduce the waiting lists and waiting times.
Peter Dowd
This excellent debate has brought out so many things. I thank the hon. Members for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol South and for York Central (Rachael Maskell) for contributing, and I thank the Minister for his replies. He has a pretty good feel for the strategic and organisational issues, and the hon. Member for Strangford and my hon. Friends set the scene for particular areas. This has been a qualitative debate—it has been about the quality rather than quantity of Members, and we have had a rich tapestry.
Finally, I want to say to the Minister that if he wants to include us in his ministerial WhatsApp group, he can do so. If he wants to give us the Prime Minister’s mobile number and the number for the Treasury team, we would be happy to take them. We will give him all the backing he needs in continuing to make the case for the resources we all want the NHS to have. Thank you very much, Ms McVey, for the opportunity to speak today.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Turing Scheme
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the scope of the proposed Turing scheme.
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. As one of the first beneficiaries of the Erasmus programme, this issue is close to my heart. I spent a year in Italy, where I not only improved my Italian, but made lifelong friends. I played rugby at Benetton Treviso and expanded my understanding of different cultures, not just European ones. As an undergraduate at Exeter University, the opportunity to study at Ca’ Foscari at the University of Venice was a huge opportunity for a comprehensive schoolgirl from Llanelli.
Over the past 34 years, Erasmus has given an opportunity to more than 250,000 students from the UK, not including those who have benefited from work placements through Erasmus+. Although it is a predominantly European Union scheme, placements are offered in 190 countries worldwide, whereas Turing is an exclusively inward-focused scheme, so where does that leave inward students? The loss of income from incoming students has been estimated by Universities UK to be £243 million per annum. How can we retain the links that have been built up and nurtured over many years when we go it alone?
In the absence of reciprocal funding, we will also be relying on students at European partner universities to come to the UK, despite the lack of financial support for them. What happens to them? Arrangements collapse or organisations introduce fees for our students. The Minister needs to address whether the costs will be covered for our students. The belief that countries will continue to want to come to the UK when their students already benefit from being part of Erasmus with no extra barriers is naive of the Government, and it will ultimately harm the future of students looking to study abroad. Understandably, the Government have talked up the benefits of the Turing scheme, but when it comes down to it, there will be less funding available for students to study abroad. Instead of £125 million a year as part of a seven-year funding cycle through Erasmus+, UK Universities have access to only £100 million in a single-year cycle.
The application process is very different from Erasmus. The added uncertainty around being selected for funding as a result of a more detailed application will prove a barrier for less advantaged students. If someone does not know whether they will get the funding for their year abroad, they are less likely to apply for a course that requires study in another country. It will be uncompetitive, with relatively limited funding available in comparison with Erasmus. Students from less privileged backgrounds will be penalised.
I think about my son and the many students studying foreign languages at A-level now, who are planning and looking ahead to go to university. What does the future hold for them? The Government have failed to address the issue of visas for students wanting to study and work abroad. Who will be responsible for the associated fees for them? Is there a limit on the number of students who will come to the UK through Turing, and will that ultimately affect UK students wanting to take a year abroad?
The timing of the announcement caused consternation for many. The announcement of the new scheme so late last year came too late for applications from those wanting to study on their year abroad in 2021. The funding model that the Government have put in place is not fit for purpose. The short-sightedness of a single-year system makes recruitment to modern foreign language degrees and other subjects that offer a year abroad really difficult. As a linguist and a modern foreign languages graduate, I feel for the students. It is an area where we have issues in recruitment and we have to look at that.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
The hon. Lady is making a powerful speech. I want to make two points. First, the Government have said that the scheme will be advantageous to disadvantaged students. Does she agree with me that we have not seen any indication of how that is the case? Does she also agree that it is not just language students who benefit from Erasmus? Students like my son, who studied physics in France, had huge benefits. Those collaborations and relationships that are built in other subjects, particularly STEM, are extremely important.
Tonia Antoniazzi
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. That is key to one of the points I want to make. I was a pure languages graduate, but is it not wonderful to push girls especially to study STEM subjects? When such a subject is put with a language that allows travel around the world, it is really powerful. We are taking those opportunities away from people with disadvantaged backgrounds because there is less money in the pot, from what we have seen so far. How is it going to work, Minister? For future generations of students across the United Kingdom, I want to know what the Government are doing.
The deadline for applications has been extended twice, which demonstrates the lack of planning and understanding by the architects of the scheme of how it was to work. It seemed like a kneejerk reaction to many of us. The application process is highly complex, not only for educational institutions; imagine what it is like for a student to fill it in. The Turing scheme limits the cohort of people who can apply to study abroad, whereas Erasmus+ also opened up opportunities to those in adult education, in schools and sports courses, and those involved in youth work. The Turing scheme does not cover those areas.
I was a teacher for 20 years and we offered those opportunities and had grants that we were able to access for exchanges. Gone are the days of taking comprehensive school children to France under schemes that I have used for their benefit. Those were children who would not even think about going on holiday there, let alone staying in somebody’s house and experiencing school in another country. Those were unique experiences that our children will now miss out on. My good friend Professor Claire Gorrara, who is the chair of the University Council of Modern Languages, said of the Turing scheme:
“The current scheme risks decades-long deeply nurtured partnerships with other European universities for the modern languages community. These partnerships have supported excellent student exchanges that have transformed young people’s lives, improved their languages skills and given them amazing opportunities as global citizens.”
The Turing scheme’s lack of reciprocity also risks staff exchanges, which are the bedrock of these exchanges. I benefited from this when I prepared a project working with a school in Treviso. I had the opportunity to visit beforehand, to ensure that everything was in place for the safety of the children and their educational experience. Without long-term and reciprocal arrangements, and relationships for continuing exchanges in Europe and beyond, the Turing scheme will not be able to deliver on the Government’s global Britain ambitions, which we fully support.
We are now facing a situation where students in England must work only within the parameters of Turing. The devolved Administrations in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have already said that they will provide additional support. as a Welsh MP, I am obviously interested in Wales., The new international learning exchange scheme in Wales will provide assistance for staff who want to spend time abroad, which is not covered under the Turing scheme.
The exchange of staff not only benefits them, but it leads to a stronger relationship between institutions, with years of relationships from which pupils and students benefit. That provides students with a wider perspective on their learning. The Welsh scheme will benefit from £65 million between 2022 and 2026. That will allow them to try to cover tuition fees when they are imposed on Welsh students—another area where the Turing scheme diverges from Erasmus+. In view of the apparent flaws of the Turing scheme, it seems likely there will be significantly reduced opportunities for learners, seeking to benefit from placements in Europe and elsewhere, and for colleges and universities, hoping to exchange experience and knowledge.
The Government need to rethink their decision to withdraw from Erasmus. Many may think it is futile for me to stand here and ask, given the Government’s ambition to create a global Britain. It really is extraordinary to think that we would withdraw from any relationship at all with a programme with 190 full programme and partner countries.
The UK will continue to participate in Erasmus until 2022 through projects that were approved up to the end of the transition period in 2020, but we need to look to the future and to argue for an Erasmus protocol to be drawn up in parallel with the new EU Horizon R&D programme, which could take effect from 2022-23. It seems likely that the Government and the Minister—I hate to say it—will plough on regardless with the Turing programme, but we need to argue for improvements to it. It is not the finished article, and we do not want it to be the finished article. We want to see improvements and to monitor its implementation.
A wide range of concerned people have been raising issues in this paper since the Government took their decision. The all-party parliamentary group on Erasmus is chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi). Parliamentary questions have been tabled by the former shadow Minister for further and higher education, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy), and others have raised issues about the likely impact of the lack of reciprocity and the income for students in Turing. What evidence is there that the Government have analysed the extent and impact of withdrawing funding from the really important transfer and development activities funded under Erasmus?
I do not want to be all gloom and doom about the Turing scheme. I want the opportunities that were there for me to be there for all people in the United Kingdom, and especially young people. There could be advantages to it, specifically in the flexibility that the scheme offers, which some institutions have welcomed. However, to provide the certainty that universities and students need, the Minister must address the issues raised by many I have spoken to. There is a pressing need for a resolution that allows for certainty.
I will bring up a few issues raised with me. How soon will it be known whether Turing can be extended beyond its first pilot year? A longer timeframe may help the programme to establish more sustainable international partnerships. Will reciprocity ultimately be considered as a feature for the Turing scheme? Will staff exchanges be considered for any future iterations or Turing? How can global Britain leverage its new international trade connections to help cement Turing mobility partnerships? There is a core of colleges with experience of Erasmus projects and partnerships in Europe but not always further afield. Other colleges are also working worldwide. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively.
The Minister for Universities (Michelle Donelan)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) on securing the debate on the scope of Turing. As she knows from her membership of the all-party parliamentary group on Erasmus, the Government are committed to international education exchanges. International exchanges and mobilities open up new and exciting possibilities for students, enabling them to develop their cultural awareness and broaden their horizons while also developing transferable skills. That is why we are funding the Turing scheme as an alternative to Erasmus+.
It was always made clear that our participation in the next Erasmus+ programme was the subject of our negotiations on the future UK-EU relationship, and participation in Erasmus+ would have meant us paying in around £2 billion more than we would have got out over the course of the programme. That simply did not provide value for money for the UK taxpayer. Turing, however, is a global scheme backed by £110 million in its first year, which will provide funding for about 35,000 UK students in higher education, further education, vocational training and schools to travel abroad for life-changing educational exchanges from this September.
Tonia Antoniazzi
I just want to point out that 35,000 is actually less than the number of those participating under the Erasmus scheme. Does she agree that that is not good enough?
Michelle Donelan
I am more than happy to send the hon. Member the link to the statistics. If we look back over the last five years, the average was 32,000, and we are pledging around 35,000, which is a similar number to under Erasmus+. It will be demand-led. Our delivery partners are the British Council and Ecorys, who are able to use their experience from having worked on Erasmus+, which I am sure the hon. Member will welcome. Turing also offers fantastic opportunities for young people across the UK and a key objective of the scheme is to reach areas of the UK that did not engage as much with Erasmus and students from disadvantaged backgrounds, as well as disabled students and students with special educational needs. At its heart, Turing is about inclusivity and opportunities.
We have had some very good responses from the sector—we have worked with them to ensure that the scheme works for all. Members do not need just to take my word for it. Vivienne Stern, director of Universities UK International said:
“The new Turing scheme is a fantastic development and will provide global opportunities for up to 35,000 UK students to study and work abroad. It is a good investment in the future of students—not only those in universities but in schools and colleges, who will also benefit.”
David Hughes, chief executive of the Association of Colleges, said:
“The Turing scheme opens the world’s door to work and study placements for college students. This is an important part of ‘levelling up’ the life chances for all of our young people—whatever their background.”
Tonia Antoniazzi
What if other universities are not going to offer places because there is no reciprocity? Is that something that is going to be addressed?
Michelle Donelan
If the hon. Member allows me to make a little progress, I will come on to that point.
Today’s debate is about scope. Turing is truly global and is not limited to the EU, unlike Erasmus+, which was 97% in the EU. Offering a broader range of countries, cultures and languages can only be to the benefit of young people in the UK. We know that there is clear demand. Already, five of the top 10 destinations for UK university students undertaking mobility placements are actually outside the EU.
More than 500 applications have already been started across higher education, further education and schools, showing that there is strong demand from the education sector to take advantage of the opportunities offered, so, far from being naive, as the hon. Member for Gower suggested, universities, further education colleges and schools have been putting in their bids and working with international partners on those relationships, despite the lack of reciprocity. Universities have until tomorrow to apply for the funding.
Carol Monaghan
One of the questions that keeps coming up is how the Government will encourage those from more disadvantaged backgrounds to engage with the Turing scheme. It would be really useful to know what the Government’s plans are to promote it in the sector and to monitor its success within those groups.
Michelle Donelan
I will get to that point. There are several ways in which we are going to achieve that, as it is a key objective of the Government’s Turing scheme.
I am thrilled to say that, at the start of the week, we already had more than 80 applications submitted from universities. Schools and colleges have until 7 May to apply for funding. I strongly invite all UK schools and colleges to bid into the scheme to make the most of these fantastic opportunities available for their learners and pupils. Students do not have to apply using the system that we have created—the hon. Member for Gower suggested that was the case. As with Erasmus, students apply directly to their educational institutions.
Global educational experiences broaden students’ horizons, expose them to new cultures and, by doing so, help them to develop crucial new skills. The evidence shows that students who have international experiences tend to do better academically and later in employment. Yet, under Erasmus+, the most privileged students were at least 1.7 times more likely to participate in study abroad. We as a Government believe that is simply not good enough. Mobility and the opportunities it opens up for our young people should not be limited to those from privileged backgrounds. Instead, we have designed a scheme that is for everybody, including the most disadvantaged, because no young person should be excluded from expanding their horizons based on their family’s income.
Tonia Antoniazzi
I realise time is tight. It is all well and good talking about engaging with people from different backgrounds, but how will the Government go and find young people and motivate them to want to participate?
Michelle Donelan
I was just getting to that point. The desire to boost participation from disadvantaged backgrounds is one of the fundamental ways that this scheme will be better than Erasmus. We have done that in a number of ways. First, we have made it an objective that providers must meet and prioritise when they put in their bids to be given approval.
Secondly, the scheme provides additional financial support for those from disadvantaged backgrounds by providing an increased grant for living costs. Unlike Erasmus, we will also be introducing funding for travel-related costs for disadvantaged students, no matter the destination. We will also cover things that they might have to pick up, such as visas, insurance and passport costs—all the additional things that can be barriers to some students.
Thirdly, we have reduced the minimum higher education duration of outward mobilities compared with Erasmus+ from one term to four weeks, which we have identified as a barrier to students from disadvantaged backgrounds or those who have other responsibilities, such as caring responsibilities. Additionally, we are focusing extra support and communications in areas of the UK that have traditionally not engaged as much with mobility schemes. That is the work of the Department, the Government and the British Council. There is also funding available to help meet the additional costs for students with disabilities, such as preparatory visits to help ensure that reasonable adjustments are made to suit the individual student’s needs.
On how the scheme will actually work, it is, like Erasmus+, demand-led, and providers will have the flexibility to form partnerships that will offer the most benefit to their students. Institutions in all four nations can bid competitively, and those that are successful will receive funding towards the cost of administering the scheme for their students. All participating students will receive grants, dependent on the destination country, to contribute towards their living costs. The grants are marginally above those given to Erasmus+ students. With Erasmus+, higher education students received a monthly grant equivalent to £320 to £365, with an additional contribution of £105 for students from disadvantaged backgrounds. Under the Turing scheme, we will provide a grant of between £335 and £380 per month, plus a disadvantaged supplement of £110 per month. We will also cover the added extras, as I outlined a moment ago.
Although we wanted to devise a flexible scheme, we envisage that the majority of higher education mobilities will be done as exchanges, so there will not be the loss of inward mobility that the hon. Member for Gower identified. To be clear, students will not be faced with additional tuition fee charges. Instead, institutions will waive their fees, which is certainly what is happening on the ground. The institutions telling me that they have put their bids in have managed to achieve that, so we know it is working in practice. This is not a new model, as higher education institutions both in the UK and overseas routinely arrange to waive their tuition fees as part of their exchange partnerships outside Erasmus. All we are doing is scaling up an existing successful model and funding it with additional taxpayer money, to both widen access to opportunities offered to students across the UK and to extend the scope.
Tonia Antoniazzi
Just one question, then: what are the Government going to do? Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are supplementing the scheme. What will the Minister be doing in the UK to make it equivalent to what students in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland will be having?
Michelle Donelan
I believe that in Northern Ireland it is not being supplemented. There will be access, in part, to the rest of Erasmus, but that has not been ironed out yet. We obviously await what will happen in Scotland, as that is a manifesto commitment and there is an ongoing election. What is happening in Wales is not starting till 2022 and is only £16.5 million per year.
Let me address some of the points that the hon. Member outlined about the differences between Turing and Erasmus. Yes, Turing is an outward mobility scheme for UK participants, but as we will fund UK participants to go abroad, it seems reasonable that we would expect other countries to do the same. Let us not forget that we are the second most attractive destination for international students, and more of the world’s top universities are in the UK than in all of the EU combined. A number of countries have schemes that they can use to fund inward mobility, and some Erasmus funding can be used to send students to the UK, as we are a recognised partner country.
I have spoken directly to several international organisations, including the likes of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the USA, Heidelberg in Germany and the Sorbonne in France, as well as many other institutions across the Commonwealth, such as the Nanyang Technological University in Singapore, York University in Canada and the University of Sydney in Australia. They are some of the world’s best higher education institutions and are eager to learn more about Turing, to engage with it and potentially to participate.
We will harness our appeal as a destination to deliver an international education exchange programme that has genuine global reach. That will strengthen the UK’s research and education sector and provide better experiences for students in the UK. International opportunities for young people outside formal education settings and youth activity are being considered as part of a youth review led by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, because the Turing scheme is an international educational mobility scheme. That youth review was commissioned by the Treasury in the 2020 spending review.
It is important to note that Erasmus+ Sport is a very small part of the programme, representing only 1.8% of the overall budget in the 2014 to 2020 programme. We are also already investing significant sums of money in sport programmes that align with Erasmus+ Sport themes and objectives. For example, through Sport England, we are investing more than £1.2 billion between 2016 and 2021 in grassroots sport and physical activity programmes.
To address the issue raised about staff mobility, Turing will not fund staff as outlined, apart from those staff who are necessary to chaperone student placements. We have done that because we have decided to prioritise taxpayers’ money to ensure that as many students, learners and pupils as possible have access to life-changing mobility to support them in developing the skills that they need to thrive, focusing particularly on enabling those students from disadvantaged backgrounds. That includes young people who have never even left their county let alone their country. The Government think that it is vital that they, too, can experience these life-changing opportunities.
The Turing scheme will ensure continuity of international exchanges while strengthening the UK’s educational sector and building on the UK’s considerable international appeal as a study destination. The spending review last year was only a one-year spending review, as I am sure hon. Members appreciate, given the pandemic. They will know, however, that the Government are 100% committed to international mobility, so be under no illusion: this is a long-term plan for the Government. That is exactly why we have created a bespoke UK-wide scheme that will support and encourage participation of students from all backgrounds to go across the globe, provide greater value for money to the UK taxpayer, and boost student skills and prospects.
Question put and agreed to.
Arms Trade: Yemen
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Esther McVey (in the Chair)
Order. I remind hon. Members participating physically and virtually that they must arrive for the start of the debates in Westminster Hall. Members are also expected to remain for the entire debate. I remind Members participating virtually that they are visible at all times both to each other and to us in the Boothroyd Room. If Members attending virtually have any technical problems they should email the Westminster Hall Clerks’ email address. Members attending physically should clean their spaces before they use them and as they leave the room, and please take wipes with them and put them in the bin. I remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Westminster Hall. Members attending physically who are in the latter stages of the call list should use the seats in the Public Gallery and move to the horseshoe when a seat becomes available. Members can speak from the horseshoe only where there are microphones.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the arms trade and Yemen.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship today, Ms McVey, and I am delighted to have secured this extremely urgent debate on the arms trade in Yemen. I thank hon. Members who are present here, and those attending virtually, for speaking today.
Liverpool is a proudly international city, and I am proud to have grown up in, and now to represent, such a diverse place, where there is a history of solidarity between our many communities. The Yemeni community in Liverpool, as with so many linked to our docks, has a long and rich history. It is often said in the city that Yemenis are the Scousers of the Arab world. Long before the war in Yemen started, Dr Najla Al-Sonboli came to Liverpool to complete her masters and PhD at the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, alongside many other Yemeni medical students. She made Liverpool her home for many years, before returning to Yemen. When the war broke out in 2015 some Yemeni medics such as Najla were offered a chance to return to safety in the UK. However she, like the others, decided she had a duty to remain and help treat the sick and suffering in the dire humanitarian crisis brought on by the war.
The community in Liverpool sprang into action. A tiny Liverpool market stall based at Granby Street market in Liverpool 8, run by a small group of fantastic women from Toxteth, began fundraising for the al-Sabeen children’s hospital in the Yemeni capital Sanaa. Dr Najla is at the heart of that incredible, selfless work at the al-Sabeen hospital. Her work, supported by staff from the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine and the women running the Habibti stall, has helped to meet the needs of one of Yemen’s only remaining free-to-access medical facilities that is still open. The staff there have had no salaries for more than five years. Many have suffered deeply, with some dying of cholera or covid, or from the bombings. They are doing everything they can to continue serving their patients. Some nurses even walk for two hours to reach the hospital, because they cannot afford the bus fare.
The money that the Habibti stall raises—even moving online to keep funds coming in during the pandemic—keeps the hospital going and ensures access to vital supplies, such as PPE, medicines, blankets and clothes. On top of the humanitarian crisis in hunger and war casualties, the conflict has resulted in a large-scale public health crisis. Severe, acute malnutrition has exacerbated a spiral of infectious diseases including the worst cholera outbreak ever recorded, with more than 2.5 million suspected cases since October 2016. Coronavirus cases are hard to track. Oxfam has reported that thousands of people are likely to be dying from undetected covid cases, as health facilities are overwhelmed and infrastructure is on its knees.
Nearly every patient who comes through the hospital’s doors, from neonatal babies in the intensive care unit to children as old as 15, and their families, are in desperate need. When Dr Najla was last asked what support she needed, the Liverpool fundraisers expected calls for PPE, extra antibiotics and perhaps an increase in expenses for the staff; but no, her answer was one word: food. I ask the Minister to take a moment to consider that devastating situation and the road that has led there, including many choices made by the present Government. The hospital has had a massive increase in patient numbers, having taken in people from all over the country, and has been targeted in air raids in which at least four people have died.
I tell this story not just because of the fierce pride that I have in my community and the actions that they have taken to support vulnerable people trapped in a hellish war, but because too often this conflict is reduced to numbers, framed in humanitarian crisis. That conceals the truth of the political decisions that created this catastrophe—political decisions in which our Government have a considerable amount of influence. I turn now to the crux of this debate: this Government’s unwavering commitment to keep supplying Saudi Arabia and its coalition allies with arms and training that have repeatedly been proven to violate international law and without a doubt are fuelling this invisible and protracted crisis.
Since the war began six years ago, nearly a quarter of a million people have been killed by the conflict, the blockades and the resulting disease and food shortage. The published value of UK arms export licences to Saudi since the war began is £6.8 billion, but the opaque and secretive open-licence system means that the true value is much higher, with some estimates as high as £18 billion. Research by Oxfam has shown that the medical and water infrastructure in Yemen has been hit hard during air raids—almost 200 times since 2015, equating to one raid every 10 days—affecting hospitals, clinics, ambulances and water drills, tanks and trucks. Dr Najla from the al-Sabeen children’s hospital has herself had to move home several times.
Figures from the Ministry of Defence’s own tracker database show that the Government are only too aware of these alleged instances of breaches or violations of international humanitarian law. I could take this opportunity to ask why—the evidence is laid bare—this Government continue to sell arms to members of the Saudi-led coalition even as the US and Italy have suspended their arms sales and several other countries have restricted them, but I have asked them that many times before, as have many of the hon. Members present at the debate today.
I could also ask why, despite the fact that 80% of the population in Yemen need humanitarian assistance, with 50,000 facing famine conditions and a further 5 million only one step away, the UK has taken steps to nearly halve the amount of aid that it has pledged to Yemen. Other G7 countries have increased their aid budgets. The UK Government, faced in Yemen with what they agree is the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, have cut their aid budget by 60% this year to £87 million, and £43 million of that will go as cash for food to alleviate the famine and £22 million to address malnutrition. Children now have irreversible stunted development because of malnutrition. The cut in aid will impact seriously on this, with remaining funds going to prevent economic collapse and support the peace process.
The decision to cut 60% of aid was taken by all Ministers in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office on the grounds that the UK needed the money to recover from covid expenditure—while the Government were handing out billions of pounds in contracts to Tory donors, family members and their mates. The announcement came mere weeks after they granted £1.35 billion-worth of arms licences to Saudi Arabia. I could ask the Minister whether he considers it the utmost hypocrisy that the UK is the penholder on Yemen at the United Nations Security Council. It has taken food from the mouths of starving children with one hand while, with the other, handing fighter jets, bombs and missiles to Saudi Arabia and its allies—that has resulted in 60,000 airstrikes in Yemen by the Saudi-led coalition, and 30% have hit civilian targets—and profiting directly from the unimaginable suffering of the Yemeni people. I could ask the Minister how he sleeps at night, knowing that the Government could do so much more to alleviate the suffering of so many millions.
Funding of relief agencies’ work in Yemen ended on 31 March—a decision made in November—and agencies are still waiting to find out what support they will get. But we have asked these questions for years. We know their answers; they have become wearily familiar. Shrouded in spin, they are shameful excuses. The reality is that this Government have a choice—to be part of the problem or to be part of the solution. The fact that the Government continue to license billions of pounds-worth of military equipment and that they continue to cut aid are devastating symptoms of a deeper problem: their lack of interest in ending this conflict. That is what we have to challenge, and I welcome the fact that hon. Members from across the House are here today. That shows that there is a will, and where there’s a will there’s a way.
As the penholder on Yemen at the UN, the UK is a crucial player on the international stage. With the right political intent, we could make a major stride in ending the fuel blockade, improving the humanitarian situation and getting the key players around the negotiating table to agree the terms of a just, inclusive and sustainable ceasefire.
I want to end my contribution by turning to the escalating situation in Marib, which is teetering on the edge of a cliff and threatening to unleash yet another wave of unimaginable misery, death and protracted conflict. Two million internally displaced people, most living in refugee camps, are at risk. Hundreds of thousands will be forced to flee, with catastrophic humanitarian consequences. The community of Liverpool understands that. No more excuses. Will the Minister go back to his Government and ensure that they commit aid that will significantly alleviate the humanitarian crisis, and ban arms exports to the Saudi-led coalition?
Esther McVey (in the Chair)
Before we come to other Back Benchers, I remind everybody that we will start the Front-Bench speeches at 5.30 pm. We have an incredible number of Members who want to speak, so time will be limited in order to get everybody in. We will start with three-minute speeches, but they will probably have to reduce to two minutes.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson) on securing this debate. As hon. Members know, I have always taken a close interest in Yemen. I was born there and, like many other Members, I have followed the progress of the civil war with horror. Like all civil wars, it is fought by a mix of combatants, following the 2011 Arab spring awakening, including the Houthis in the north, who are dissatisfied with the lack of investment in infrastructure in the north of Yemen.
The legitimacy of the official Yemeni Government response, led by President Hadi, is recognised by the UN under Security Council resolution 2216. The coalition forces of the Yemeni Government have been helped by Saudi Arabia and, previously, by the United Arab Emirates as Gulf Co-operation Council members.
As we move towards the peace process, the country has become increasingly complicated, with the Southern Transitional Council in Aden, another group led by Tareq Saleh, nephew of the ex-President Saleh, in the west, and various tribal militia, all looking for a voice in the peace process. At the same time, we have al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and ISIS, so it is not as two-sided as hon. Members may think. In fact, the attack on Marib is largely because the Houthis tried to increase their negotiating power in any future peace process. The Saudis are working with the existing Government to protect the citizens in Marib.
It is a complex situation, but one thing is clear: arms sales by the UK did not start the war, and the UK’s export regime is not preventing the Houthis or any other party from accepting a negotiated outcome to it. It is not in the interests of any of the outside powers that the war continues. Our exports to any destination are checked against the consolidation criteria, which are very clear about respect for human rights, preservation of regional peace, security and stability, and the existence of armed conflict.
The granting of licences resumed only after international humanitarian law analysis. Other countries, including the US, continue exports where they judge them legitimate. President Biden has recently reaffirmed US military exports to Saudi Arabia. The Houthis have been firing missiles into civilian areas in Saudi Arabia, which has every right to defend its country and borders.
We have to end this civil war now. Britain is the UN penholder and is leading on this. I salute the tireless work of Martin Griffiths, the UN envoy. We need a coherent strategy that aligns every interested party in Yemen. All parties must come to a ceasefire and work on a peace process. That is the only way to bring this conflict to an end and begin rebuilding Yemen.
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab) [V]
The Saudi-led war in Yemen has been raging since 2015. Since the beginning of the conflict, more than 100,000 people have been killed, including about 20,000 civilians killed or injured in direct attacks. The war has also created one of the worst man-made humanitarian crises in the world today, with about 24 million people in severe need of humanitarian relief and 4 million people displaced from their homes.
Over the course of the conflict, many gross violations of human rights have been committed by both sides. In particular, the Saudi-led coalition continues to carry out indiscriminate attacks on civilians and bomb civilian infrastructure in Yemen. Homes, schools, markets, mosques, weddings and funerals have all been targets. Shamefully, they have been doing so using arms supplied to them by the UK.
As a major defence trade partner, the UK has sold to Saudi Arabia a range of aircraft missiles and bombs that have subsequently been used to attack and kill civilians in Yemen. It a source of immense shame that the UK has played such a fundamental part in the murder of civilians. That is why I, along with many others in this country, am calling for an immediate end to all arms sales to Saudi Arabia. We must do all in our power to bring this horrendous conflict to an end. Ceasing our arms trade with Saudi Arabia is an obvious and important starting point. The UK should play an active global role in upholding and protecting human rights, and work alongside international organisations to broker sustainable peace in Yemen.
The political and humanitarian situation in Yemen is intolerable for the civilian population, with multiple groups fighting for control of the country at the expense of civilians. That has resulted in serious human and civil rights abuses committed by Houthi groups as well as Saudi-backed forces. With no legitimate democratic solution in sight, it is essential that the United Nations and other international organisations help to build a lasting, peaceful and democratic transition.
It is in our interests to stop all arms sales to Saudi Arabia immediately and unconditionally and, instead, work towards facilitating a negotiated peace between the Houthi rebels in Yemen and the Saudi-backed coalition.
Esther McVey (in the Chair)
Moving forward, the time limit on speeches will be two minutes. I call Marco Longhi.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
Where arms are sold, there will always be questions asked, and rightly so. But armaments and technologies are advancing at such a pace that once a country decides to tie itself to another for that supply, the supplying country can exert influence. We account for about 20% of Saudi arms imports. I submit to colleagues that it is far better for stability in the region and for jobs at home that it is the UK that has that influence.
I know Labour Members hate capitalism, but if we withdraw sales from Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabia will simply seek suppliers from other countries—that could be Russia or even China. Do hon. Members really want Russia and China to fill that supply vacuum? We have seen their behaviour in Crimea and Xinjiang.
The middle east is a highly complex geopolitical arena that requires long-term solutions, not short-term political opportunism. The Government are using all their diplomatic and humanitarian expertise to bring an end to the conflict in Yemen and alleviate the humanitarian crisis. We do not ignore those in need, even when facing domestic financial pressures, with over €1 billion in aid committed to support affected rural households and individuals in Yemen.
The consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria are taken very seriously by the Government when assessing all export licence applications. Every application is assessed on a case-by-case basis, using a range of information, including reports from non-governmental organisations and our overseas network. Those original frameworks were set out in law through Acts of Parliament by the then Labour Government in 2002 and 2008, yet it is the Labour Opposition who now take issue with the frameworks and their application. Is it their own laws that they are unhappy with, or the application of those laws by highly trained civil servants?
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab) [V]
Yemen has been and remains the world’s greatest humanitarian crisis. Millions have been forced to flee their homes, face severe malnutrition and need urgent assistance. On top of that, Yemen must face the coronavirus pandemic with a broken healthcare system. Far from being a helping hand, or even idly standing by, the UK Government have actively facilitated the conflict time and again by continuing to supply arms, training and technical support to Saudi-led forces perpetrating the Yemeni people’s ongoing suffering.
The Government have, on multiple occasions, faced honest and reasonable cause to end the arms trade to Saudi Arabia, they but have consistently failed to act. Last July’s decision to blankly dismiss any risk of Saudi Arabia committing war crimes as “isolated incidents”, and using such a judgment as a basis to resume selling arms, flew in the face of the comprehensive findings of the UN group of eminent international and regional experts on Yemen, who found consistent breaches of international law through the very real harm being caused to civilians.
With the US now having halted arms sales to Saudi Arabia for use in Yemen, the UK is at risk not just of isolating itself internationally, but finding itself on the wrong side of a moral line. This is not a moral line with any ambiguity—there is no grey area here. The suffering in Yemen at the hands of British-provided Saudi arms is plain and clear for all to see.
Finally, halting arms to Saudi Arabia and its coalition allies is a step in the right direction. The UK has a responsibility to do everything it can to bring about a just and lasting peace in Yemen and the wider region.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
Colleagues have rightly spoken about Saudi Arabia and the effects of arms sales on Yemen. I agree with the comments of my colleagues on restricting sales, but with time so short, I want to raise the role of the United Arab Emirates, which I do not want to be forgotten in this debate.
The UAE has recently concentrated its efforts in southern Yemen and the island of Socotra, establishing a military presence on Socotra and supplying arms to militias on the island. The Socotra archipelago has a population of 50,000 and an almost unique biodiversity —700 species found nowhere else on Earth. It is a UNESCO world heritage site. The UAE controls maritime access to the island and there are reports that UAE ships supplied military vehicles to local militias as recently as last month.
In the US, Democratic Senators Bob Menendez and Dianne Feinstein have tabled a Bill that could block the sale of F-35 fighter jets to the United Arab Emirates due to their involvement in Yemen. The Bill targets a pending deal that includes 50 Lockheed Martin-made F-35s worth $10.4 billion. The UAE is one of the UK arms industry biggest customers. The UK’s 2015 national security strategy and strategic defence and security review made a commitment to establish a permanent British defence staff in the Gulf, which is based in Dubai. The UK sold £144 million-worth of arms involving 122 companies in the last three years. It would be remiss of the UK Government to consider restricting arms sales to Saudi Arabia, without also considering the UAE.
I beseech the Minister to reverse the decision to almost halve humanitarian aid to Yemen. If any country should be exempt from cuts to aid, it is Yemen, although I absolutely oppose abandoning our commitment to spend 0.7% of GDP on overseas aid. However, with UNICEF stating Yemen is the largest humanitarian crisis in the world, with more than 24 million people— 80% of the population—needing humanitarian assistance, including more than 12 million children, it is up to us to act. Our country has a noble history of assisting people in countries ravished by famine and war. People in this country have voluntarily donated hundreds of millions of pounds in the past four years to save people from starvation. The Government should back the will of the British people and not cut a penny, especially as the UN penholder.
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab) [V]
I thank my good friend and neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson) for securing today’s debate on this hugely important matter. Yemen is the world’s worst humanitarian crisis. It is a human crisis that requires every bit of will and determination the international community can muster. We remember those who have been lost in the scourge of this war and redouble our efforts in the fight for the living.
For too long, a once proud people have been pummelled by fear in the form of bombs and pain; starvation and death. It is a real honour for me as a Liverpool MP to extend our solidarity and hand of friendship to the Yemeni people, especially the Yemeni community in my city of Liverpool. That community has a long and vibrant history in our great city, extending as far back as the 19th century. We recognise their contribution today and every day, as we take a moment to share the great pain they suffer.
As the conflict in Yemen enters its sixth year, I want to take a moment to reflect on the struggle to live a life free from fear, free from the fear of violence on the streets and destruction raining down from the air, and free from hunger, disease and death itself. As human beings, the common bonds that unite us cannot be denied. Whether in Yemen or anywhere else, we all aspire to live a fulfilled life based on love, compassion and family.
It is our responsibility as a former global power and current major player in the arms trade to step up and take our responsibility to preserve human life seriously. That means cancelling all arms sales to Saudi Arabia immediately. Even President Biden has ensured that the arms sales are suspended in America. It is time that we followed President Biden’s example on this issue. This country is becoming ever more isolated on the matter. I implore the Minister today to do the right thing and stop the arms sales.
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab) [V]
Thank you, Ms McVey. As hon. Members have said, six long years of war have pushed Yemen into the world’s worst humanitarian catastrophe. Hundreds of thousands have died, including nearly 10,000 killed by Saudi-led air strikes. Infrastructure has been crippled, and 50,000 people are living in near famine-like conditions while millions of others stand on the brink of starvation.
Since the Saudi bombardment began, the UK has approved £6.8 billion-worth of arms export licences to Saudi Arabia. Planes built in Britain have delivered death from the skies above Marib and Aden. Typhoon fighters, Paveway bombs and Brimstone missiles built here in the UK have all been brought into the service of Saudi Arabia’s brutal assault on Yemen, and all while private shareholders grow rich from the suffering of millions and the deaths of thousands.
I have spoken many times about the vital role that defence spending has to play in supporting domestic industries and improving defence capabilities, but this does not blind me to the importance of ensuring that the arms we manufacture should not be handed to the tyrants who have no regard for human life. British trade policy must have respect for human rights at its heart. Ministers can claim to champion international law and promote democracy abroad, but that does not seem to match their deeds. They seem desperate to abandon the UK’s long-standing humanitarian commitments. In the past year alone, the Department for International Development has been thrown on the scrapheap, the foreign aid budget slashed to a measly 0.5% of national income, and human rights concerns pushed aside, so that the UK can strike trade agreements with regimes that are responsible for brutal abuses. Of course, the greatest stain on our international reputation is our continued complicity in the war in Yemen while we are slashing financial aid to the war-torn hell on Earth.
I hope that the United States’s recent change in strategy regarding arms exports to Saudi Arabia will have caused our Government to rethink their callous policy on arms sales. Sadly, however, British firms are still allowed to export billions of pounds-worth of weapons for use in Yemen, so I join my hon. Friends in urging the Government to change course now. It is time for Britain to stop reaping profit from this human catastrophe, and to start bringing pressure on all parties involved to broker a just and lasting peace.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
The ongoing war is intolerable. Although we know that almost £7 billion has been spent on arms sales, the figure is probably more like £20 billion, because many of those sales are not even recorded with the open licences. Even the lower figure means that, on a VAT rate of 20%, £1.3 billion has been gained for the Exchequer, and we have spent only £1 billion on aid. If it is the larger amount, £4 billion has been made by the Exchequer on tax from those deals. The taxpayer has profited directly from the misery and the deaths of people in Yemen, and we have not even bothered to give a scrap of that back, let alone the full amount.
Of course, we now know that many arms agreements were illegally made. The Court of Appeal said that those licences were illegal and required the Government to suspend them. The Government failed to suspend them and broke the court order, so the Court required the Government to go back and apologise. Now, rather than actually changing anything, the Government have found a loophole to continue arms sales, and another court case will have to progress. I am afraid that anyone who says that officials or the Government are following the consolidated criteria—those great criteria that were partly developed by Robin Cook—is delusional. They are on a different planet, because that is not what the courts, the researchers and the people on the ground in Yemen are saying.
Most importantly, our allies are begging us to withdraw. Germany has suspended arms sales, and we saw the disgraceful situation of our Foreign Secretary begging Germany to continue to allow arms sales where parts were made for Britain’s weapons. The Biden Administration have now done the right thing and suspended arms sales, but the fact is that we train many of the fighter pilots.
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab) [V]
The Saudi-led war in Yemen has continued for more than six years, backed by the sale of British arms to Saudi Arabia. In 2016, my predecessor as MP for Cynon Valley, Ann Clwyd, said:
“Saudi Arabia—using British bombs and planes—may have committed war crimes on Yemeni civilians”
and here I am today in 2021 saying the same. Over the period, there has been much bloodshed. In December 2020, the UN estimated there had been 233,000 deaths in Yemen since the conflict started. Last month, a health emergency was declared in Yemen due to a second wave of covid-19 infections. Yemen is in no position to cope with a sudden rise in cases.
Yemen is experiencing the world’s worst food security crisis, with more than 20 million Yemenis, including 13 million children, facing starvation. Recently, fuel shortages have created difficulties in providing the humanitarian aid on which 80% of the population are dependent. Despite withdrawing many ground troops in 2019, Saudi Arabia has continued its use of airstrikes in Yemen; almost a third of those airstrikes hit civilian targets. In June 2020, the High Court issued a landmark ruling forcing officials to pause arms sales to Saudi Arabia due to concerns that the weapons would be used in violation of international humanitarian law. Despite that, the Government rushed out a report in a matter of months that absolved them of guilt. It seems implausible that the Government were satisfied with the findings and resumed arms sales to Saudi Arabia. In the three-month period following the resumption of sales, the Government authorised £1.4 billion of arms sales to Saudi Arabia.
On a global stage, the UK is isolated in its continued support for the Saudi regime while others such as America and Europe have suspended arms sales to Saudi Arabia. The money gained through those arms sales has been dwarfed by the moral cost of their use. Until now, Britain has been complicit in the war crimes perpetrated in Yemen, but that does not need to, and must not, continue. The UK Government need to act urgently to end their support for Saudi airstrikes and suspend all sales of arms to the Saudi regime.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab) [V]
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson) for securing this important debate. I also acknowledge the vital work of the Campaign Against Arms Trade, which has helped to shine a light on the UK Government’s central role in the conflict. The humanitarian crisis in Yemen is a tragedy and a stain on the reputation of the UK due to the arms that flow continually from our shores and fuel the unrelenting and one-sided bombardment by the Saudi regime.
Instead of using their place on the world stage to stand up to the atrocities committed by Saudi Arabia, the UK Government have been complicit in those war crimes, all because they profit from every single bomb that is dropped in Sanaa and beyond. Britain’s largest arms company, BAE Systems, has a gruesome track record in the region. It has sold £17.6 billion-worth of aircraft, weapons and services to the Saudi military since 2015, when Riyadh first began bombing Yemen. Despite the UK Government’s posturing and pronouncements against Mohammed bin Salman following his orders to murder journalist Jamal Khashoggi, the reality is that, just four weeks later, the International Trade Secretary met BAE Systems to discuss how to facilitate further arms sales to Riyadh.
I am sure that the Minister will refer to the temporary embargo that was in place last year on new arms licences. Despite that, a recent report by Declassified UK revealed that sales continued with renewed vigour and helped BAE earn a further £2.6 billion from the Saudi military last year alone—an increase on its morbid success in 2019. Furthermore, the Campaign Against Arms Trade believes that BAE’s total sales to Saudi Arabia over the six years of conflict could total £19 billion when cyber-security deals and the company’s share in missile manufacturer MBDA are included. At what point will the Government acknowledge their shameful role in the crisis and stop the relentless flow from British companies who are helping to arm the conflict? It is time for the Government to act. It cannot be left to bloodthirsty companies like BAE, which grow ever larger while supplying the Saudi air force. I urge the Government to take immediate action.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
Instead of profiteering from the war in Yemen, the Government need to concentrate their efforts on diplomacy and aid. Instead, they have simultaneously continued to trade in arms and slashed their humanitarian aid spending in Yemen by 50%, despite international condemnation and the fact that 80% of Yemenis—24 million people—are in urgent need of food and healthcare. The Government are well aware that the cut in aid will undoubtedly cost Yemeni lives, and their unlawful arms sales to the Saudis continue.
More than 100,000 people have died in the conflict, including tens of thousands from disease and famine. The UN has already reported that the UK is “aiding and assisting” the catastrophe in Yemen. So much for the UK’s global sanctions regime when it knowingly arms slaughter.
The Government may feel a little bit like Macbeth: that they are
“in blood
Steeped in so far that, should I wade no more
Returning were as tedious as go o’er”.
But it is not too late. The Government could even now do the decent thing—the moral thing—and suspend all existing contracts and stop this trade in death and human suffering. No other course of action is morally justifiable. The Government should also restore all necessary aid to Yemen.
Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind) [V]
The Yemeni conflict is not only the world’s largest humanitarian crisis but one of the worst atrocities of the modern era. The conflict has displaced more than 4 million people, while 24 million people—a staggering 80% of the population—need aid and protection, 16.2 million people face severe food insecurity, and 20 million people lack reliable access to clean water, making disease prevention almost impossible. In November 2020, the United Nations found that more than a quarter of a million Yemeni people have died over the last six years. This is a disaster.
It is therefore shameful that Britain is complicit in this war crimes atrocity, especially as the UK is a penholder on Yemen at the UN Security Council, and should therefore be ensuring the country’s safety, not funding its misery. The UK has licensed at least £6.7 billion worth of arms to Saudi Arabia since 2015, with Oxfam estimating the true value to be more than £15 billion. In contrast, at the recent UN high-level pledging event for the humanitarian situation in Yemen, the UK Government’s pledge of £87 million was almost half the £164 million pledged at the same funding conference last year, and a reduction of £131 million since 2019.
That is the real-world impact of cuts to the UK’s aid budget, which the UN Secretary-General described as a “death sentence” for Yemen. It comes just weeks after the UK Government announced £1.36 billion in new arms licences to Saudi Arabia. The Government’s duplicity is shameful. With one hand they sign resolutions and speak of their desire to end the conflict, yet with the other they continue to facilitate the suffering of the Yemeni people by providing the weapons that rain down on civilian houses. Now is the time for all of us in the UK to say, “Not in our name will the unimaginable suffering of the Yemeni people continue.”
The Government must accept their complicity in this humanitarian catastrophe. They must follow the lead of countries around the world, ensuring that no weapons made in our country are used in the conflict by doing all that they can on the international stage to bring an end to this horrific war.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab) [V]
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson) on securing this very important debate. The situation in Yemen is truly devastating. According to the UN, 233,000 people have been killed by the war, the blockade, and the resulting food shortages and disease. Estimates state that at least 8,759 civilians have been killed by Saudi-led forces in bombing attacks. The UK Government must recognise that they are contributing to this catastrophe. The Government licensed arms exports worth more than £1.65 billion to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates in the second half of 2020. That includes £1.4 billion in the ML4 category, covering bombs, missiles, grenades and countermeasures.
Alongside the UK’s arms exports to the Saudi-led coalition, the UK aid cuts have undermined the UK’s diplomatic efforts towards a political solution. The UK Government’s pledge of £87 million in aid at the UN high-level pledging event for the humanitarian situation in Yemen—almost half the funding pledged at last year’s conference—came just weeks after the UK Government announced £1.36 billion in new arms licences to Saudi Arabia. The decision to slash humanitarian aid to Yemen is disgraceful. In Yemen, 16 million people live in food insecurity and 20 million people lack reliable access to clean water. Nearly 50,000 already face famine conditions.
The UK is the penholder on Yemen at the UN Security Council. We should be showing global leadership by stepping up to tackle the humanitarian crisis and stopping arms sales to the Saudi-led coalition, as the US and Italy have done already. Will the Minister explain how the Government can justify cutting UK aid when they have issued at least £6.8 billion in arms export licences to Saudi Arabia, thereby directly profiting from this catastrophic war?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson) for setting the scene so well. As we are all aware, the UK is not a member of the Saudi-led coalition. However, we are all equally aware that Saudi armed forces are using UK-built and licensed arms in Yemen, including Typhoon aircraft, missiles and bombs. It seems difficult to reconcile our obligations to Yemen, in terms of human rights aid, with the profit received from the arms trade. The licences include £1.4 billion in the ML4 category, which covers bombs, missiles, grenades and counter-measures—a 500% increase on the previous six months.
At the same time, 16 million Yemenis live in food insecurity, 50,000 are already facing famine and a further 5 million are only one step away from hunger. Two thirds of the population rely on food aid to survive. It is estimated that some 24 million Yemenis—80% of the population—need humanitarian assistance, which is being thwarted by the Saudi-led coalition’s air and naval blockade of the country. It is absolutely ridiculous what they are doing.
More than half of Yemen’s 30 million population is currently going hungry. UNICEF warned that the number of malnourished children in Yemen could rise by 20% to 2.4 million by the end of 2020 because of the shortfall in humanitarian funding. Some of the television programmes that I watch tell us about the famine and are looking for charitable help. When we see the pictures of those wee children who are on the verge of starvation and dying, we would have to have a heart of stone not to be moved. I want to make a plea today for all those young wee children—those 2.4 million.
Continuing to export arms to the Saudi-led coalition is a direct contradiction of the integrated review’s claim that the UK must be a force for good. To make that happen, we must support open societies and defend human rights. That means that steps must be taken to deliver humanitarian aid and stop this arms trade in the interim. I fully support the hon. Lady in what she said.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I want to take this opportunity to remind colleagues of the human consequences that the arms trade and conflict in Yemen can have on people. Four years ago, in April 2017, my constituent Luke Symons was stopped at a Houthi checkpoint in Sana’a and detained. He has been held in prison ever since for no reason other than that he holds a British passport.
Luke’s is a very typical Cardiff story in many ways. The rapid growth of Cardiff as a coal exporting port in the late 19th and early 20th centuries brought many Yemeni and Somali sailors to the city. Luke comes from one of those Cardiff Yemeni families who still have relations in the country. On a visit to Yemen in 2014, he met his future wife and settled there before the conflict broke out. They desperately tried to leave, but were unsuccessful before Luke was detained.
I appeal to the UK Government to redouble the efforts they have already made to secure Luke’s release and secure safe passage for him and his wife and child to the UK. I thank the Foreign Secretary and the Minister for the Middle East and North Africa, the right hon. Member for Braintree (James Cleverly), for their efforts so far.
I also appeal to Luke’s Houthi captors, during this holy month of Ramadan, to release him. His grandfather, Bob Cummings, who has a deep and abiding love for the people of Yemen and the middle east from his time as a merchant seaman, has campaigned tirelessly for Luke’s release. Luke’s grandmother, Sheila, who played a big part in his upbringing, is very ill and deeply worried about his welfare. It would be an act of mercy and compassion and would show the Houthi leadership in a good light if, after four years of this sad affair, that young man of 29 years, who is simply caught up in events and has committed no crime, could be reunited with his wife and child and wider family. That is the plea from the family to his Houthi captors, and I sincerely hope it will reach them and their hearts.
Esther McVey (in the Chair)
We have managed to get all the Back Benchers in, but the Front Benchers will have to shave down their time to four minutes and then eight minutes.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I hope that, since my election to this place, I have demonstrated, particularly in foreign affairs, that where I agree with the UK Government’s position, I am vocal in that agreement. Equally, where I disagree with the UK Government’s position, I will be just as vocal. On arms sales to Yemen, the Scottish National party has a fundamentally different view of the policy being taken forward by the UK Government, and we oppose the direction that the UK is in.
I start by praising what the UK has been doing to foment efforts towards a just peace. I know that significant efforts are being made to try to broker a peace between the warring parties. The UK is a significant donor of aid and there are significant efforts going forward to ameliorate the situation. But that aid is being cut. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has confirmed that the aid is being cut from £164 million to £87 million this year. That is a 50% cut to one of the most war-torn and desperate situations in the world.
Yemen is a humanitarian disaster. According to Oxfam, in a full briefing received by all of us, 24 million people—80% of the population—need aid and protection, and 10 million people are facing severe food insecurity. The conflict has displaced over 4 million people, two thirds of the population are reliant on food aid to survive, 20 million people lack reliable access to clean water, making disease prevention almost impossible, and then there is covid on top of that. It is one of the most desperate situations in the world, and the UK has contributed to it.
The most significant export from the UK to Yemen is, sadly, arms, via Saudi Arabia. I am close to the region: I grew up in Riyadh and I know the region well. I carry no torch for anybody except for a just peace. The fact is that the UK has sent billions of munitions to the region, to a place in the world that has the least possible ability to withstand it. The UK is not a neutral, honest broker in trying to create a just peace. It is a partisan, actively contributing to the disaster. It is shameful that the issue has not been properly looked at in the round.
The UK is also behind the curve internationally on the matter, as several countries have stopped the arms trade to Saudi Arabia precisely because of humanitarian concerns. The US, Germany, Finland, Canada, Denmark, the UN and the European Parliament have all called for the trade to stop, but the UK stands almost alone in contributing. I take the point that other countries might fill that gap. Indeed they might, and we cannot stop them. But the UK is grossly hypocritical in its stance on Yemen. That is the fact of the matter. I look forward to the Minister’s comments. To my mind, the UK should institute an arms embargo to Saudi Arabia, pending these concerns. I disagree with the cut to aid full stop, but the UK should exempt Yemen from those cuts. It is one of the most benighted places in the world, it needs our support, and the UK has not been a force for good in Yemen.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson) on securing the debate. She is already known in the House for strong and challenging interventions, and her speech today will only add to that reputation.
My hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Hall Green (Tahir Ali), for Enfield North (Feryal Clark), for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel), for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker), for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley), for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle), for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter), for Stockport (Navendu Mishra), for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins), for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), and for Leicester East (Claudia Webbe) all underlined in their contributions the fact that the humanitarian situation in Yemen is desperate. A decade of fighting has produced the world’s worst humanitarian disaster, and over 230,000 people have already been killed by the war, and the resulting food shortages and disease. Millions of people are still at risk of starvation and disease.
If the situation in Yemen was not bad enough, covid and the failure thus far of ceasefire negotiations is quite clearly exacerbating the terrible crisis still further, particularly in the oil and gas region of Marib, where up to 2 million people are sheltering from the intensifying conflict. At this stage, I echo the call of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West that his 29-year-old constituent be released from prison and allowed to return home. I am sure the whole House supports his call for that to happen.
The failure in the beginning of March of the UN’s annual appeal for emergency funding to match last year’s pledges is deeply worrying. As Members have highlighted, the decisions of UK Ministers to impose an almost 50% cut in our aid to Yemen is striking. Many of the poorest and most vulnerable people in the world are in Yemen, and our country has a strong and long history with the people of Yemen.
As the House knows, the Government’s failure to implement their own laws relating to arms exports led eventually to the Court of Appeal ordering, in July two years ago, the Department to stop granting licences for exports of arms to Saudi Arabia. The Court of Appeal’s decision was based on a long catalogue of attacks on the civilian population since 2015. Thousands were killed in air strikes. Weddings, funerals and markets were all targeted. One year after the Court’s judgement against the Department, the Secretary of State published a new internal assessment of the Saudi bombing campaign in Yemen. Despite considerable evidence to the contrary, it was claimed that despite “isolated incidents” where international humanitarian law may have been broken, there was no pattern of activity that would lead her to question the intent or the capacity of the coalition to comply with international humanitarian law.
It is striking that, despite our requests, the Secretary of State has still not published any of the analysis that she undertook on the Saudi bombing campaign. She has repeatedly refused to publish a list of allegations that her new analysis examined. She has also refused to disclose which incidents she classed as possible violations of international law. I urge the Minister to publish that evidence, even at this late stage.
Arms sales resumed very quickly, reaching their highest total compared with any of the previous 19 quarters put together, before the Court of Appeal’s decision. As other hon. Members have made clear, a series of countries—not least the United States—have taken the decision to suspend arms sales. It continues to be surprising that the UK has not followed suit. I look forward to hearing the Minister attempt to justify that decision.
The Minister for Trade Policy (Greg Hands)
May I say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey? I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson) on securing the debate and, in particular, on her warm words about the Yemeni community in Liverpool, whom the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker) also mentioned. I also thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to the debate.
Let me begin by stating the obvious: the humanitarian crisis in Yemen is nothing short of appalling. That is a matter on which all parts of the House will resoundingly agree. The situation was well described by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside, as well as by others, including my hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley (Mrs Drummond). The number of civilians killed, and the cholera and covid situations, have piled misery upon misery.
Yemen is a beautiful country of proud people, a point that was well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley, who grew up there. Yemen has contributed so much to the historical and cultural fabric of our global community. As all speakers have said, anyone who has heard or read about the harrowing plight of the people of Yemen cannot fail to be moved by the unimaginable suffering experienced there daily. Their dire struggle against a seemingly relentless charge of civil war, natural disaster, hunger and disease is truly unthinkable.
For there to be any prospect of peace or any notion of normality for the Yemeni people, it is clear that there must be a sustainable political settlement. That is the only way to address the worsening humanitarian situation and bring real long-term stability to the country. That is why the UK Government are straining every diplomatic sinew to help to bring an end to the conflict in Yemen. The increased engagement that we are seeing from the US and Oman is certainly timely and welcome, and the UK Government were pleased to see Saudi Arabia making clear its commitment to a peace deal in recent public comments. We continue to provide our full backing to Martin Griffiths, the UN special envoy, in his laudable efforts to reach a peaceful settlement, a point that was well made by many others, including my hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley, and the hon. Members for Liverpool, Riverside and for Enfield North (Feryal Clark).
On overseas aid, despite financial pressures—not least from covid-19, which has stolen lives and livelihoods in this country and across the world—the United Kingdom has maintained its position as one of the leading aid donors to Yemen. In this financial year, UK Aid will feed 240,000 of the most vulnerable Yemenis every month, support 400 healthcare clinics, and provide clean water for 1.6 million people.
We recognise the concerns about our arms sales policy, and I assure hon. Members that the Government take our arms export responsibilities very seriously indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Marco Longhi) said. It must not be forgotten that the UK’s defence and security industries make an important contribution to the economy, enhancing our global competitiveness and boosting our economic growth, not to mention sustaining tens of thousands of highly-skilled manufacturing and engineering-based jobs across the UK. A lot of the speakers in this debate come from the north-west region, and many of those jobs are located there, in Lancashire, particularly around Preston, as well as in Cheshire and other areas in the north-west of this country.
Our policy on export control is not to frustrate or hamper the ability of those responsible companies to trade, but to make the world a safer place for us all by operating a clear, proportionate and robust system of export controls in the UK.
We rigorously assess every application on a case-by-case basis against the consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria, known as the consolidated criteria, first introduced by Robin Cook in 2002 under the last Labour Government and updated by Vince Cable in 2014. The consolidated criteria provide a thorough risk assessment framework for evaluating export licence applications and require us to think hard about the impact of providing equipment and its capabilities. As part of the assessment process, we draw on a range of sources and information. That includes insights from non-governmental organisations, international organisations and our overseas network. Decisions on export licences are not taken lightly, and we have been clear that we will not license the export of equipment where to do so would be inconsistent with the consolidated criteria. The Government’s position on arms exports to all countries remains that such exports require an export licence and that all export licence applications will continue to be carefully assessed against the consolidated criteria on a case-by-case basis.
On scrutiny, contrary to what the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) said, the UK operates one of the most transparent export licensing systems in the world. We publish official statistics both quarterly and annually of all our export licensing decisions, including details of export licences granted, refused and revoked. UK export licensing is also accountable to Parliament through a statutory obligation to provide an annual report on strategic export controls. Parliamentary oversight is provided through the Committees on Arms Export Controls, which are made up of members of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and International Trade Committees, as well as members of the International Development Committee. That arrangement ensures that appropriate scrutiny from a range of perspectives can be applied.
The hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) mentioned the case of Luke Symons. As he knows, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is in contact with the Symons family, and I am delighted that he has had the opportunity to meet the Minister for the Middle East and North Africa, my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (James Cleverly), and the Foreign Secretary. We warmly endorse his words calling for Luke Symons’ release, particularly during this holy month of Ramadan.
I hope, Ms McVey, that I have impressed upon you that the Government take their export responsibilities seriously. The Export Control Act 2002 requires Government to give guidance about the general principles to be followed when exercising licensing powers, which we do through the consolidated criteria. We have been abundantly clear that we will not issue a licence where to do so would be inconsistent with the criteria. For the avoidance of any doubt, our assessment of licence applications also carefully considers our obligations under the United Nations arms trade treaty and other rules of international law.
The Government desperately want to see a long overdue end to the conflict in Yemen. We fully support Martin Griffiths and the United Nations in their efforts to broker a ceasefire and kick-start the political process to secure a pathway to peace. From the passionate contributions we have heard today, I know that Members from all parties across the House will echo that sentiment and share our high hopes that an end to the conflict in Yemen is on the horizon.
Kim Johnson
I thank all hon. Members for their impassioned contributions. I disagree with the Minister and the hon. Member for Dudley North (Marco Longhi) on continuing to support arms sales to the Saudis. The UK has a responsibility to do everything to bring about a ceasefire, and the escalating situation in Marib threatens another decade of destruction. The Government have the power to do the right thing, cease arms sales, increase aid to its full amount—the Minister did not mention that—and not make any more flimsy excuses. If we are not part of the solution, we are going to be part of the problem. We need to make those changes now to stop the destruction and the major humanitarian crisis in Yemen.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the arms trade and Yemen.
Written Statements
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Contingencies Fund Advance: Covid-19 Support Packages
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for London (Paul Scully)
I hereby give notice of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy having drawn an advance from the Contingencies Fund totalling £1,579,925,000 to enable expenditure on covid-19 support packages for business to be spent ahead of the passage of the Supply and Appropriation Act in March 2021.
The funding is required for the local restrictions support grant (LRSG) (closed) addendum scheme, which provides grants of up to £3,000 per month to businesses which are legally required to close due to covid-19 restrictions.
Parliamentary approval for additional resources of £1,579,925,000 will be sought in a supplementary estimate for the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £1,579,925,000 has been met by repayable cash advances from the Contingencies Fund.
The cash advance will be repaid upon receiving Royal Assent on the Supply and Appropriation Act.
[HCWS924]
Contingency Liability Notification: Baglan Operations Limited and Baglan Group Companies
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kwasi Kwarteng)
I am tabling this statement for the benefit of hon. and right hon. Members to bring their attention to the details of a contingent liability following the provision of an indemnity from the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to the Official Receiver acting in the insolvency of Baglan Operations Limited (BOL) and the wider Baglan Group companies.
It is normal practice when a Government Department proposes to undertake a contingent liability of £300,000 and above, for which there is no specific statutory authority, for the Department concerned to present Parliament with a minute, giving details of the liability created and explaining the circumstances.
BOL entered liquidation on 24 March 2021 and owns a site hosting a gas generation plant—now closed—and operates a private wire which provides electricity to the Baglan Energy Park in Port Talbot. The energy park accommodates various businesses—primarily a paper product manufacturer, Intertissue—public sector buildings —local authority offices and a NHS medical centre—and a water pumping station.
The departmental minute I lay today is to notify Parliament retrospectively of the provision of an indemnity to the OR.
Departmental officials and I are aware of the presence of several chemical substances at the site that will require safe disposal. There is also a gas plant and 12 km of pipeline that will require decommissioning. BOL supplies the electricity through a private electricity wire, which is exempt from being licensed. As it is licence-exempt, BOL is not capable of being covered by the energy regulator Ofgem’s supplier of last resort arrangements or any energy special administration regime.
My Department has been monitoring this fast-moving situation since December 2020, working closely with the Welsh Government, Wales Office, the Insolvency Service, UK Government Investments (UKGI) and HM Treasury.
My Department has provided the OR with an indemnity in respect of:
carrying out the proper performance of the OR’s duties as liquidator of the Baglan Group companies;
seeking the appointment of, engaging and instructing the special managers in respect of the Baglan Group companies; and
maintaining, securing and funding the ongoing operation of the Baglan Group companies undertakings, and distributing the assets of the companies in the ordinary course of the OR’s duties as liquidator of the Baglan Group companies.
HM Treasury has approved the proposal and I will be laying a departmental minute today containing a description of the liability undertaken.
[HCWS925]
Regulation of Football Index
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Media and Data (Mr John Whittingdale)
I am announcing today that DCMS will appoint an independent expert to conduct a review of the regulation of the Football Index gambling product, up to the point where its operator’s licence was suspended in March, and to make recommendations to the Government and the regulators.
Football Index’s operator, BetIndex Ltd, was granted a licence to provide online betting by the Gambling Commission in September 2015. The Commission began a formal review of this licence in May 2020 and suspended it in March 2021. The company is currently in administration. At the time of suspension, the product allowed customers (called traders) to place bets (shares) on the future performance of footballers. These bets lasted for three years, with payments called dividends being made according to a player’s performance. The product evolved to let customers buy and sell bets with prices fluctuating according to demand.
The Government are taking the situation regarding Football Index and the concerns of those affected by it very seriously. It is reported that many thousands of customers are affected by the product’s collapse, with some having lost very large sums. This review will aim to establish both how this situation came about and what lessons we can learn from it.
A principal purpose of the review will be to take an objective look at the decisions and actions of the Gambling Commission and any other relevant regulators, to provide a clear account of how the company’s activities were regulated and identify if there are potential areas for improvement in how complex products are treated.
Its findings will form part of the evidence informing the Government’s review of the Gambling Act 2005, which was announced in December 2020. The review is considering whether changes are needed to the regulatory framework around gambling, including the Commission’s powers and resources and how it uses them. It is also looking at how novel and complex products should be licensed and regulated.
The Commission’s regulatory investigation into BetIndex Ltd is continuing. This independent review is separate to that investigation and will be carried out and report in a way which will not compromise it. It will also be without prejudice to the ongoing administration proceedings, which among other things are looking at assets and liabilities of the company and recompense to customers.
Further details of the independent reviewer and terms of reference will be announced in due course. It is intended that the review will report publicly in the summer and will inform the wider Gambling Act Review. The Government aim to produce a White Paper setting out their findings from the review of the Gambling Act 2005 by the end of the year.
[HCWS929]
Supporting the Deployment of 5G and Extending Mobile Coverage
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Matt Warman)
Now, more than ever, people need access to dependable and consistent mobile coverage where they live, work and travel.
We have committed to extend mobile geographical coverage across the UK with uninterrupted mobile signal on all major roads, and to be a global leader in 5G. That is why the Government have agreed a £1 billion shared rural network deal with the UK’s mobile network operators to extend 4G mobile geographical coverage to 95% of the UK by 2025. The Government are also investing £200 million in a programme of 5G testbeds and trials to encourage investment in 5G so that communities and businesses can benefit from this new technology.
It is essential that the planning system can effectively support the delivery of the mobile infrastructure that we need. That is why in 2019 the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government published an in-principle consultation on proposed reforms to the permitted development rights governing deployment of mobile network infrastructure. We concluded that the proposed reforms would have a positive impact on the Government’s ambitions for the deployment of 5G and extending mobile coverage, particularly in rural areas, where mobile coverage tends to lag behind more urban areas.
In July 2020 we announced that we would take forward the reforms, subject to a technical consultation on the detail of changes and including the appropriate environmental protections and other safeguards.
The Government have now published a technical consultation, https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/ changes-to-permitted-development-rights-for-electronic-communications-infrastructure-technical-consultation, seeking views on proposals to:
Enable the deployment of small radio equipment cabinets without the requirement for prior approval in article 2(3) land (which includes national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and conservation areas), and allow greater flexibility for installing equipment cabinets in compounds;
Allow for the strengthening of existing masts by permitting greater increases in the width and height of existing masts outside of article 2(3) land, and the width of existing masts in article 2(3) land, without prior approval; and further increases with prior approval;
Enable building-based masts to be deployed closer to the highway on unprotected land; and permit smaller masts and poles to be installed on buildings without prior approval outside of article 2(3) land; and,
Enable taller new ground-based masts to be deployed on all land subject to prior approval, with greater permitted heights outside of article 2(3) land; and permit the deployment of monopole masts up to a height of 15 metres without prior approval outside of article 2(3) land.
The proposed changes will not apply to land on or within sites of special scientific interest, to listed buildings and their curtilage, or sites that are or contain scheduled monuments.
The consultation will run for eight weeks, closing 14 June 2021.
These changes will support wider and enhanced coverage that will ensure all communities benefit, and will give greater certainty and speed over deployment of infra-structure, increasing investor confidence. They also aim to encourage the use of existing infrastructure and promote site sharing to reduce the impacts of new deployment.
We believe these proposals achieve an appropriate balance between supporting the Government’s ambitions for 5G and mobile coverage, and ensuring that the appropriate environmental protections and safeguards are in place, particularly for protected landscapes.
Alongside the technical consultation, we will work with industry representatives, Ofcom, local authorities and rural stakeholders to develop a new code of practice on mobile network development in England, to ensure the impact of new and upgraded mobile infrastructure is minimised and that appropriate engagement takes place with local communities.
As planning law is a devolved matter, any future legislative changes will apply to England only, but we will continue to work closely with the devolved Administrations to ensure that the planning regime continues to support the deployment of mobile infra-structure across the United Kingdom
[HCWS930]
Skills Education
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Gavin Williamson)
As we build back better from the pandemic, we are announcing plans which build on the reforms set out in the skills for jobs White Paper, putting employers at the heart of plans to make sure people have the skills they need to get good jobs.
Today we are launching a consultation on flexi-job apprenticeships which will make it easier for employers from all sectors of the economy to benefit from the impact that apprenticeships can bring to their business. The consultation is available at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/flexi-job-apprenticeships-reshaping-the-role-of-apprenticeship-training-agencies.
Since 2015 we have transformed apprenticeships into a prestigious technical education programme that is launching people’s careers, upskilling and retraining workers, and helping employers develop the skills they need to thrive. Apprenticeships are at the heart of the Government’s plans to drive economic recovery, and we are already making £3,000 available to employers for each new apprentice they recruit until 31 September.
In September 2020 the Prime Minister set out his ambition to make apprenticeships more portable, reflecting the varied and flexible models of employment that we see in dynamic sectors such as the creative industries, digital and construction. The consultation we are launching today sets out our vision for flexi-job apprenticeships as a means to achieve this and to unlock the potential of apprenticeships in these sectors. We want to seek views on this vision, and on how flexi-job apprenticeships can meet the needs of employers and provide a high quality experience for apprentices.
At Budget on 3 March the Chancellor announced a new £7 million fund for flexi-job apprenticeship schemes. This consultation is an important step in preparing to launch this fund in July and ensuring that it delivers a vital skills boost to sectors which need it.
Skills accelerator launched
As part of the skills for jobs White Paper, we have launched the skills accelerator. This is central to the White Paper’s aim to give employers a central role working with colleges, other providers, and local stakeholders to shape technical skills provision so that it meets labour market needs. It will be piloted in 2021-22 to test how we can enable a shift towards the White Paper’s vision of a more collaborative post-16 system with employers at its heart. During the pilot:
Local plans will be developed by employer representative bodies in collaboration with colleges and other providers and through engagement with key local stakeholders. They will provide a framework to help colleges and other providers reshape their offer to tackle skills mismatches and ensure they are responding effectively to labour market needs. Employer representative bodies are invited to come forward to lead these plans and will have access to funding to help them to do so. Applications to pilot these plans close on 25 May and successful applicants will be announced thereafter.
£65 million will be made available to local areas as a one-year pilot, to facilitate changes to provision that have been endorsed by local employers. Providers and employers will work together to increase the level of skills in the workforce, stimulating demand for better jobs and leading to increased innovation and productivity. The fund will provide capital and revenue for collaborative projects that will build providers’ capacity to meet locally agreed skills priorities. Applications for pilot projects close on 25 May, with successful projects announced thereafter.
[HCWS927]
Covid-19 Antivirals Taskforce
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)
I would like to update the House on the establishment of the Government’s new covid-19 antivirals taskforce.
Following the success of the vaccines and therapeutics taskforces, Her Majesty’s Government are seeking to remain at the forefront of the battle against covid-19 and further develop our standing as leaders in the life sciences sector. The new team will lead the search for novel oral antiviral treatments to provide additional protection for the UK population, particularly those currently deemed most vulnerable, and relieve pressure on the NHS.
The UK’s vaccine programme, whilst immensely successful and vital in pandemic recovery, will not protect everyone. Vaccine effectiveness is not established in all groups of the UK population, and there will be some groups for whom vaccines may not be effective protection, so antiviral treatments will provide an alternative form of protection.
The aim of the antivirals taskforce is to search for the most promising novel oral antiviral medicines and speed up the process of development, manufacture and deployment, with the goal of having at least two of these drugs ready to deploy by the autumn.
We are still at a relatively early stage of the vaccine deployment programme. Our understanding of the implications that mutations of the virus may have on vaccine efficacy is developing all the time. Antivirals can be used for two key purposes: first, to inhibit the virus at an early stage to stop mild disease becoming serious illness. By inhibiting the virus at this stage, the drugs also prevent replication—both within an individual and from person to person—limiting the impact of and spread of covid-19, relieving pressure on the NHS and supporting our ongoing return to normal life.
Secondly, antivirals may also be able to be used as post-exposure prophylactics, to minimise the spread of the disease where there has been contact with known, positive cases.
Since the beginning of the pandemic, the UK has proven itself a world-leader in identifying and rolling out effective covid-19 treatments, including the world’s first treatment, dexamethasone, which has saved 22,000 lives in the UK so far and an estimated million worldwide. These treatments help the recovery of patients who have been hospitalised with covid-19. The aim of an oral antiviral treatment is that it will be readily available for use outside of these settings, for example, in a patient’s own home.
Building on the successful work of the therapeutics and vaccines taskforces, the antivirals taskforce is bringing together the brightest minds from medicine, industry experts and across Government and the life sciences to find a new, innovative treatment for patients to take at home. A short competition will be run to identify a suitable chair for the taskforce.
We are already engaging with industry to identify antiviral compound candidates which could be ready for deployment in the autumn, and will update the House with the taskforce’s progress in due course.
[HCWS932]
Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)
Section 19(1) of the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures (TPIM) Act 2011 (the Act) requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of every relevant three-month period on the exercise of her TPIM powers under the Act during that period. TPIM notices in force— as of 28 February 2021 3 Number of new TPIM notices served—during this period 0 TPIM notices in respect of British citizens—as of 28 February 2021 3 TPIM notices extended—during the reporting period 1 TPIM notices revoked—during the reporting period 0 TPIM notices revived—during the reporting period 0 Variations made to measures specified in TPIM notices—during the reporting period 2 Applications to vary measures specified in TPIM notices refused—during the reporting period 0 The number of subjects relocated under TPIM legislation—during this the reporting period 2
The level of information provided will always be subject to slight variations based on operational advice.
On 22 February 2021 TPIM subject LF was sentenced to two years and four months having pleaded guilty to six counts of breaching his TPIM notice.
In accordance with the Act, Section 9 reviews of the TPIMs against JM and LF were heard at the High Court between 30 October and 10 November 2020. In a judgment published on 10 February 2021, the Court upheld the necessity and proportionality of the TPIM notice and all of the measures specified within it against JM. LF only challenged the necessity and proportionality of two of the measures specified within the notice. In the judgment the court upheld the necessity and proportionality of both measures. This judgment can be found at:
www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2021/266.html
The TPIM review group (TRG) keeps every TPIM notice under regular and formal review. First quarter TRG meetings will be held between 16 and 23 March 2021.
[HCWS926]
Machinery of Government Change: GREAT Britain and Northern Ireland Campaign
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)
I am making this statement to bring to the House’s attention the following machinery of Government change.
Policy responsibility for the GREAT Britain and Northern Ireland campaign will transfer from the Department for International Trade to the Cabinet Office. This change will be effective immediately.
[HCWS928]
Highways England First Year Progress Report on Smart Motorways Stocktake
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)
The House will know that this Government take the safety of our roads very seriously and has invested heavily in improvements to help prevent deaths and injuries. Great Britain has some of the safest roads in the world and, although per 100 million miles driven there are fewer deaths on smart motorways than conventional ones, we are determined to do all we can to help drivers feel safer and be safer on our roads—all our roads.
In March 2020,1 published a smart motorway safety evidence stocktake and action plan. The safety improvements in the 2020 action plan consisted of a package of 18 actions, costing £500 million, including the rollout of radar-based stopped vehicle detection (SVD) technology across the ALR motorway network and an additional £5 million on national and targeted communications campaigns to ensure drivers receive advice to help them keep safe. Furthermore, we have changed the law to enable automatic detection of vehicles driving in closed lanes, known as red x violations. Highways England is upgrading all enforcement cameras across the smart motorway network to enable automatic detection of red x violations which can then be enforced by the police.
One year on from the publication of the 2020 action plan, I commissioned a report from Highways England which sets out its progress on these 18 actions along with proposals about how those actions could be accelerated. Today Highways England has published its “Smart Motorways Stocktake First Year Progress Report 2021” which I will place in the Libraries of both Houses. The report contains the latest safety data, which updates analysis contained in the 2020 stocktake report.
The report demonstrates significant progress against the 18 actions, which when delivered in full, will raise the bar on motorway safety. Over the past 12 months Highways England has launched a major road safety campaign to give drivers clear advice about what to do in the event of breaking down; completed work to turn emergency areas orange so they are more visible to drivers and improved the signage letting drivers know how far they are from the next place to stop in an emergency; installed 10 more emergency areas on the M25 around London; held a public consultation on proposed changes to the highway code that will provide more information about motorway driving; continued to upgrade cameras so they can automatically detect red x violations; and introduced radar-based stopped vehicle detection technology on stretches of the M3 and the M20, with work under way on the M1.
Highways England is now accelerating a number of actions so that the completion dates set out in “Highway’s England Strategic Business Plan 2020-25” are brought forward.
Most significantly, radar-based stopped vehicle detection technology will now be installed on all operational ALR motorways by September 2022, six months earlier than planned. Highways England has also made a commitment that no all lane running motorways will open without radar technology to spot stopped vehicles, enable lanes to be closed where necessary, and get help to drivers quickly.
The data contained in the Highways England progress report continues to show that fatal casualties are less likely on all lane running motorways than on conventional ones, but we know drivers can feel less safe on roads without hard shoulders, which is why the progress report published today intends to accelerate a number of actions to provide reassurance to drivers. My statement of 24 March 2021 confirmed that the Office of Rail and Road is carrying out an independent review of the data to provide further analytical assurance and ensure that the conclusions arrived at are robust.
I would like to pay tribute to all those safety campaigners, in particular those who have lost loved ones, on their efforts to ensure that changes are made. The Government and Highways England will continue to work hard to improve road safety.
Attachments can be viewed online at: https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2021-04-20/hcws931
[HCWS931]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now begin. Some Members are here in person, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I ask Members in the Room to respect social distancing. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded, or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes.
Covid-19: Economic Recovery
Baroness Penn
That the Grand Committee takes note of the steps taken to protect jobs and livelihoods as the economy recovers from the COVID-19 pandemic.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, it is a privilege to introduce today’s debate on behalf of the Government. Given the challenges that the Government have faced this last year and that they continue to face, this is an important opportunity to review their approach to what we all understand has been a grave shock: a health emergency and an economic emergency. I am pleased to have this opportunity to debate and discuss the measures that we are introducing to protect jobs and livelihoods, as the economy recovers from the Covid-19 pandemic—as we are all determined it will.
The Government’s efforts to tackle the economic damage threatened by the pandemic have been broad and deep. A comprehensive and sustained economic shock was met with a comprehensive and sustained response, recognising the difficulties faced by individuals, families and businesses across the country. The Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme has helped to support over 11 million unique jobs since its inception and the Self-employment Income Support Scheme has supported a further 2.7 million people, with grants worth over £19 billion. Individuals and families have also benefited from increased welfare payments, a stay on repossession proceedings and mortgage holidays.
Support was given to renters through increases to the local housing allowance rates for universal credit and housing benefit recipients and an additional £500 million was made available to councils last year through the hardship fund grant to support households struggling to meet council tax payments. This money was used to provide recipients of local council tax support with a further £150 reduction in their bills. Government has delivered over £75 billion in guaranteed loans to more than 1.6 million businesses, as well as providing tax deferrals, grants and a business rates holiday worth over £10 billion.
In sum, the Government have taken unprecedented action to support our economy and public services in response to the pandemic. Taking into account the significant support announced at the 2020 spending review and this year’s Budget, the total financial support for the economy is over £350 billion across last year and this year, or around 17% of 2020 GDP. This includes £55 billion in 2021-22 to support the public service response to the pandemic.
All of this has made a very real and tangible difference. In fact, the Office for Budget Responsibility now expects the UK economy to recover to its pre-crisis level six months earlier than originally expected—by the end of the second rather than the fourth quarter of 2022. Meanwhile, unemployment is expected to peak at around 6.5% instead of the nearly 12% feared last summer. As the Resolution Foundation observed,
“This would be by far the lowest unemployment peak in any recent recession, despite this being the deepest downturn for 300 years.”
Our focus was on the preservation of jobs and livelihoods and that is what we have sought to deliver.
Looking forward, in response to the current restrictions and the Prime Minister’s road map to easing the public health measures, the Chancellor announced at the Budget an additional £65 billion of economic support. The furlough scheme has been extended until the end of September, support for the self-employed will also continue until then and we have extended eligibility so that those who completed a 2019-20 tax return by 2 March will qualify for the fourth and fifth self-employed grants, potentially reaching a further 600,000 people with support. At the same time, the fifth and final grant will include a turnover test to ensure that support is targeted at those who need it most.
The Budget maintained the universal credit uplift of £20 a week for a further six months, provided working tax credit claimants with the equivalent support over the same timeframe and increased the national living wage to £8.91 an hour. For the first time since it came into effect in 2016, the age threshold for the living wage has been lowered from 25 to 23 years old, giving a pay boost to more younger people.
At the Budget, the Government launched a new restart grant to help businesses reopen and get going again, worth up to £18,000 per business, and a new recovery loan scheme to replace earlier bounce-back loan schemes and coronavirus business interruption loans. To support the cash flow and viability of around 150,000 businesses and to protect over 2.4 million jobs in the hospitality and tourism sector, the Government have extended the temporary reduced rate of VAT at 5% to 30 September 2021. To help businesses manage the transition back to the standard rate, a 12.5% rate will then apply for a further six months, until 31 March 2022. The Budget also announced a three-month extension of the business rates holiday, followed by a 66% capped relief for the remainder of the year. This is worth £6 billion to businesses in the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors and nurseries.
The reality is that the Government have continued to deliver a package that is unprecedented in scope and scale and reflects the wider strategy for cautiously reopening the economy, as set out in the Government’s road map. As we follow the road map and lift restrictions, there are reasons for optimism. Overall, household balance sheets have strengthened, with household savings in 2020 as a whole almost £139 billion higher than in 2019. At the same time, while many firms have been hit hard by the pandemic, data on corporate deposits at banks suggests that, in aggregate, firms accumulated additional savings of close to £100 billion between March and December 2020. Of course, those additional savings do not reflect the reality for many families and businesses hardest hit by the pandemic, on which the Government must now focus their support.
That is the briefest of summaries of where we are and what the Government have already done. What matters now is our future recovery. The key to that recovery is growth. Our plan to build back better will drive economic growth by investing in infrastructure, skills and innovation. It tackles long-term problems so that we can deliver growth that creates high-quality jobs across the UK and strengthens the union, as well as achieving the people’s priorities: levelling up across the whole UK, supporting our transition to net zero and supporting our vision of a global Britain.
Economic recovery was the thinking behind other new measures announced in the Chancellor’s speech at Budget last month, including the super-deduction, which will allow companies to reduce their taxable profits by 130% of the cost of investment that they make in plants and machinery—equivalent to a 25p tax cut for every pound that they invest. Worth £25 billion over the two years it is in place, the super-deduction represents the biggest business tax cut in modern British history.
That is just the beginning. The Budget also announced the creation of the first ever UK infrastructure bank, headquartered in Leeds and tasked with investing across the United Kingdom in public and private projects to finance the green industrial revolution. The Budget accelerates that green industrial revolution in other ways too, including by funding new port infrastructure to construct a new generation of offshore wind projects in Teesside and Humberside. This is in addition to £12 billion of government investment to create and support green jobs as part of the Prime Minister’s Ten Point Plan for a Green Industrial Revolution.
As the country recovers from the pandemic, we will rely hugely on the enterprise and endeavours of our small businesses. Two new schemes—Help to Grow and Help to Grow: Digital—will help tens of thousands of small and medium-sized businesses get world-class management training and help them develop their digital skills by giving them free expert training and a 50% discount on new productivity-enhancing software. These are initiatives the Institute of Directors has called
“a big win for SMEs.”
We have also set out our plans to make the UK a scientific superpower—another means by which investment can help power our recovery. To support this ambition, the Government will invest £14.9 billion in R&D in 2021-22, meaning that UK government R&D spending is now at its highest level in four decades. We have also committed to providing £800 million by 2024-25 for the new Advanced Research and Invention Agency, ARIA, which is tasked with funding high-risk, high pay-off research and supporting ground-breaking discoveries which could transform people’s lives for the better.
Through our Plan for Jobs, the Government have provided unprecedented support to protect existing jobs, help people find work and support people in building new skills. For those who unfortunately lose their jobs, we are helping them to find new ones by doubling the number of work coaches and with additional tailored support such as the Kickstart scheme and Restart programme. So far, over 180,000 Kickstart jobs for young unemployed people have been approved by the scheme, and Restart will provide support to over 1 million unemployed people.
We are also doing what we can to make sure we have enough access to the talent that we need, both at home and abroad, through our apprenticeship and traineeship programmes, the lifetime skills guarantee, and the reforms we are making to our visa system to attract highly skilled migrants. We know that apprenticeships work, which is why the Chancellor has increased and extended the incentive payments for employers who hire a new apprentice. Employers who hire a new apprentice between 1 April and 30 September this year can now claim a payment of £3,000.
Crucially, our efforts to support an investment-led recovery target all four nations of the United Kingdom, with accelerated city and growth deals in Ayrshire, Argyll and Bute, and Falkirk, and three more in North Wales, Mid Wales and Swansea Bay, as well as funding support for the Holyhead hydrogen hub. Alongside these measures, our commitment to levelling up across the UK is reflected in the £4.8 billion levelling-up fund; more than a billion pounds for 45 new town deals; a £150 million fund to help communities across the United Kingdom take ownership of pubs, theatres, shops or local sports clubs at risk of loss; and in Her Majesty’s Treasury’s own commitment to open offices in Darlington to form a northern economic campus. This complements the inward investment that will be attracted through the announcement of eight new freeports in eight English regions, offering tax, customs and regulatory benefits, driving greater innovation and the creation of high-quality jobs.
Importantly, over time, once the economic recovery is secured, the Government will take the necessary steps to ensure the public finances are on a sustainable path. Given that the Government are providing businesses with over £100 billion of support to get through the pandemic, it is only fair and necessary to ask them to contribute to our recovery. That is why the Budget increased corporation tax to 25% from 2023, after which point the OBR has said recovery will be under way. The UK will still have the lowest corporation tax rate in the G7, and smaller companies who make less than £50,000 profit annually will be subject to only a 19% tax rate.
Significantly, the Budget did not raise the rates of income tax, national insurance or VAT. Instead, it maintained personal tax thresholds on income tax, inheritance tax, the pensions lifetime allowance and the annual exempt amount in capital gains tax from 2022-23 until 2025-26—that is, four years. This is a universal, progressive and fair measure to fund public services and help rebuild our public finances.
It is thanks to people’s hard work and sacrifice, supported by the success of the initial stages of the vaccine rollout, that there is now a path to reopening the economy. But the Government are not complacent. We understand, just as noble Lords understand, that there is much more to do. Our approach will remain flexible. As measures to control the virus evolve, so will government support. We will continue to listen to the views of people across the political spectrum, we will continue to take action on a number of fronts, and we will continue to do what it takes to engender the economic recovery that the country needs.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the Government on the steps they have taken, so eloquently described by my noble friend Lady Penn, to protect jobs and livelihoods during the pandemic. Where they prevented businesses operating, albeit for good reason, they were morally obliged to compensate those prevented from earning a living. But there is something odd about the title of this debate. It refers to the steps taken to
“protect jobs and livelihoods as the economy recovers”.
But it is economic recovery that will effectively protect and replace the jobs that were threatened or destroyed during the pandemic.
The conventional wisdom is that to bring about a recovery we need a fiscal stimulus. Most recessions are caused by a shortfall in demand, and the remedy then is to boost monetary demand. But this recession is unique: it is caused by the suppression of supply. So a precondition of recovery is to end the lockdown as soon as possible, now that all those at risk have been offered the vaccine.
Moreover, while businesses have been prevented from producing the goods and services they normally deliver, most people have been paid, not least through the furlough scheme, and many have been unable to spend all their earnings—so there is considerable pent-up demand. As we relax the lockdown of supply, most sectors will therefore recover quite rapidly. But some will find that part or all of their previous demand has moved elsewhere. To create jobs for people displaced from those sectors, we will need existing businesses to expand and new businesses to be established. I will return to that in a moment.
First, should we—as the slogan has it—build back better? This has been universally accepted as both desirable and possible. But who builds an economy? A market economy is built by myriad interlocking individual decisions: people choosing to produce goods and services that other people want to buy. The alternative would be for government to override those decisions by regulation, taxation, public spending or state provision, and thereby induce people to produce and buy goods and services that they would not otherwise choose to produce and buy.
There are many high-minded people who are convinced that their choice of the goods and services that people ought to produce and consume is morally, aesthetically and economically superior to that which the hoi polloi, left to their own devices, would make. Maybe. But experience teaches that, if we adopt this course, it will probably make people materially poorer, and it will certainly make the recovery slower. That is inevitable, because higher taxation, more burdensome regulation and bureaucratic decision-making inexorably undermine the dynamism of a free economy. Anyone who seriously believes that the economic recovery, let alone the subsequent rate of economic growth, will be accelerated by white elephants such as HS2 or by raising the cost of energy, which is what the advocates of a green economy would do, is living in a dream world.
I mentioned that we need businesses to expand and new businesses to be created. One little-noted positive lesson of the pandemic could help that. During the crisis, under political, public and parliamentary pressure, regulators suddenly discovered that they could take decisions in a fraction of the normal time. New diagnostic tests and vaccines were approved in record time, new designs for ventilators were authorised, local councils permitted restaurants to expand on to the pavement and so on. What slows down business expansion in normal times, and the formation of new ones, more than anything else, is the need to get permits and approvals for a whole range of things: planning, building controls, environmental approvals, health and safety inspections, product authorisations and so on. For a business even to open a new bank account can take weeks because of money-laundering rules.
Regulators are often afraid to make decisions speedily. When I was Trade and Industry Secretary, I was occasionally advised by the department’s lawyers not to give a speedy decision in case there was a judicial review and the courts might be persuaded that I had not given due consideration. But now that we have seen that regulators can make decisions speedily, we must maintain pressure on them. Wherever possible, regulators should be required to reach a decision within a set time, failing which there should be “deemed consent” and the application should be able to go ahead. Every public body with a regulatory function should be required to report at six-monthly intervals on how long it has taken to reach decisions—both the average time and the slowest decile. Select Committees should hold all regulatory bodies within their sphere of influence to account for delays in reaching decisions.
In short, the recovery will come as soon as we end the lockdown. There is enough pent-up demand to ensure a speedy recovery; any additional stimulus risks merely adding to the subsequent inflation. Attempts by government to tailor the recovery to some arm-chair ideal of fairness will inevitably slow it down, and the best way to accelerate it is to speed up decision-making by regulators.
Baroness Humphreys (LD) [V]
My Lords, in my contribution to this debate, I want to talk mainly about the situation in Wales and, in the light of today’s ONS figures showing that the number of workers on UK payrolls has dropped by 813,000 since March 2020, like the Minister, I want to look at the challenges ahead.
Over the past 20 years, Wales has, of course, benefited from European funding and has seen improvements in infrastructure and advances in business development, but, as that funding comes to an end, the truth is that we are still playing catch-up. Wales remains the part of the UK with the lowest incomes and some of the worst instances of poverty. Before the Covid pandemic, a report by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation found that 700,000 people—a quarter of the population—were living in poverty. Now we are living with the aftermath of Brexit as well as Covid, both of which have caused further damage to our already fragile economy.
Over the past year, Wales, like the rest of the UK, has seen its economy supported by the introduction of the furlough scheme and by business support grants, among other UK Government measures, ensuring that families received an income and that businesses could survive to open up again as circumstances improve. As we continue our tentative release from our latest four-month lockdown in Wales, and as we approach the Senedd elections on 6 May, we need to recognise the massive challenges that the new Welsh Government will face and the decisions that they will need to make about how they use their powers and their budget to protect jobs and livelihoods and, crucially, to carve out a better future for businesses in Wales.
Our economy suffers from a structural problem that has received little recognition and has hampered plans for growth. We have a huge number of microbusinesses and a small number of branch operations from inward investors, which many jobs rely on. We need to continue to support these, of course, but we also need to promote the growth of stable, medium-sized companies by investing in infrastructure, technology, skills and training and by working with business leaders. My party in Wales wants to see the development of a long-term plan to support businesses and enable small businesses to grow, including establishing an economic recovery council grounded in real experience and the voices of small businesses from across Wales.
One feature of the pandemic has been the success of local essential retail stores in towns and high streets, many of which have operated every single day serving our communities during what has been a difficult time. To ensure that our high streets can thrive and adapt, we want to see the creation of a £500 million fund to breathe life back into our town centres.
The past two weeks have seen the reopening of non-essential stores in Wales, and next week will see the opening of outdoor hospitality. I must admit that, along with so many people, I am longing for that first decaf cappuccino outside the café on the town square. As more businesses reopen after this four-month lockdown, there will be a struggle to continue in business, particularly as any outdoor operation in Wales is invariably affected by the weather. I therefore welcome the announcement in the Chancellor’s spring Budget that the business rates holiday will be extended until the end of June, that the furlough scheme will be extended until the end of September and that restart grants will be available to help the high street reopen. In addition, the Welsh Government have confirmed a business rates holiday for the full 12 months, up to March 2022, for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses. Coming from an area which relies heavily on tourism, and having seen the impact of the pandemic on the mental health of some of our hoteliers, I know that this will bring them a modicum of relief.
The Welsh Liberal Democrats want to go further, however. By their actions, both the Chancellor and the Welsh Government have recognised the burden placed on businesses by the imposition of business rates. It is an inequitable system desperately in need of reform, placing businesses on the high street at a disadvantage to their online competitors. We would freeze business rates for the lifetime of the next Senedd and, in the long term, replace them with a fairer, more supportive system. If the high street is to survive, this system must be reformed and replaced.
I began this contribution with a reference to the number of people living in poverty in Wales, and I want briefly to return to that subject. Wales has been afflicted by a vicious cycle of low pay, inadequate childcare and rising housing costs. In half of the households in poverty, at least one person is in work. It is simplistic to suggest that employment alone is a route out of poverty. Is it enough to protect the jobs and livelihoods of those who do not and cannot lever themselves and their families out of poverty? In an age of falling real pay, longer hours and rising living costs, how can a future Welsh Government ensure that the dignity of work leads to a reduction in inequalities and gives people a hand-up out of poverty? Our ambition is to make Wales a real living wage and a living hours nation. We want to draw on evidence from around the world and work with the UK Government to pilot a nationwide universal basic income in an effort to reduce the inequalities inherent in the present system. We would seek further devolution of the benefits system to Wales to bring Wales into line with Scotland and, using the powers that the Senedd now has, we would provide free part-time childcare from the age of nine months to three years for all parents, enabling them to return to work.
For those of us committed to seeking ways to mitigate the impact of climate change, the message is loud and clear: there can be no true economic recovery from this pandemic unless it is a green economic recovery. The potential for green investment to create new, long-term jobs, stimulate sustainable long-term growth and re-energise our communities is immense. Wales, with its wealth of natural resources, can play a role in contributing to these outcomes. It is crying out for investment in new green homes and the retrofitting of existing homes, as part of a large-scale investment programme in renewable energy and environmental protection measures leading to high-quality, sustainable employment.
The additional challenges of recovery that have to be faced by a new Welsh Government are many—tackling broadband and mobile phone connectivity problems in rural Wales, ensuring that funding schemes for our farmers provide not a penny less for farming and agriculture, investment in the supply of affordable and social housing in rural communities—and a major concern is how we rebuild our NHS after the pandemic, and how we build a 24/7 mental health service to address the problems faced by so many children and adults.
The measures taken by the Chancellor and in turn by the Welsh Government have helped to preserve jobs and businesses and have provided a baseline allowing many to survive and grow. The Chancellor and the Welsh Government deserve great credit, but the challenges ahead are real, not unique to Wales and cannot be ignored.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I am glad to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, as it is heartening to see that there is at least one noble Lord on the Liberal Democrats Benches who has an interest in economic recovery.
I hope the Minister will forgive me if I do not spend my time on her policies to protect jobs and livelihoods. She has already read out her brief on that. I support what the Government are doing. In particular, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has provided excellent financial support, which has lessened the impact of the pandemic. We now need to focus on the recovery of the economy, because a successful economy is the only way to protect jobs and livelihoods in the long run, and I am aligned with my noble friend Lord Lilley on this.
The pandemic has had a devastating impact on the economy. We are on track for debt to be 100% of GDP, and GDP last year was down by just short of 10%. There is one thing we should be clear about: the pandemic did not cause this. The scale of the economic losses was a direct result of the Government’s lockdown policies. The Government prioritised their public health response with apparent disregard for other harms: namely, non-Covid health harms, both physical and mental, and very great economic harms. The public health zealots and modellers who seem to have had a grip on policy formulation have positively discouraged rational debate on the balancing of harms, which has amplified the economic consequences.
Even today as the economy is allowed slowly to emerge from its suspended animation, the Government seem hell-bent on making life as difficult as possible for the hospitality and leisure sectors to operate efficiently: sit outdoors only, no more than six people, table service only, keep lots of records and so on. There was no evidence that hospitality venues were a prime source of the spread of Covid infections, but they were brutally shut down and are struggling to reopen in a way that makes money. The goalposts have moved so often on Covid actions and strategy that it is hard for businesses to be confident about how they will be allowed to operate in future. Music festivals are the latest casualty.
Whatever the Government assert, there is precious little evidence that lockdowns are the only way to deal with the pandemic. The differing experiences of various states in America show that. The biggest danger at the moment is nosocomial infection, and many of us suspect that it has always been a major driver of infection and mortality. It is much safer to go to a pub than to go into hospital, but that has been airbrushed away because it conflicts with the NHS-as-saviour narrative.
From the outset, Covid-19 was not a disease that had significant mortality among those under 50, and that remains the case, but the Government insisted on closing schools and locking everyone up regardless of health or age status, bringing the economy to a complete halt. That is why we have suffered so much economic damage and why the Chancellor has had to introduce the costly support policies that are driving the debt and deficit levels. There were alternative policies, which could have had a different outcome, but the Government have allowed themselves to be dominated by public health extremists.
The Government have done one thing outstandingly well in the vaccination programme, and I pay particular tribute to the work done last year by Kate Bingham. A very high proportion of the higher-risk groups is now vaccinated. We should already be back to normal, and that includes your Lordships’ House.
The best thing the Government can now do is to get out of the lives of our citizens and businesses. There should be a total ban on government departments planning any more interventions in the way that we live our lives. The whole set of Covid rules should be put on a bonfire: no gathering of personal data, no masks, no bans on meeting people in groups of whatever size, and certainly no more overzealous policing and fines.
The Government have published their plan for growth, which has lots of worthy things in it, but suffers from one fundamental weakness. It assumes that what government does is the most important contributor to economic growth. The short-term advantages of Keynesian stimulus must not blind us to the fact that at the end of the day it is the private sector in the shape of our businesses, large and small, which will grow the economy. The Government should focus on what they can do to liberate our business sector, so that it can do the job it does best: build profitable businesses that provide employment, tax revenues and innovation for the future.
I could spend all day talking about the things that the Government could do in this space, but let me outline just a few. We need a regulatory environment that supports enterprise, and fortunately we are no longer constrained by the EU. Regulation in particular strangles small and medium-sized businesses, and that is where the Government should focus their efforts. They should largely ignore larger businesses, which often benefit from regulatory burdens acting as barriers to entry. We need a tax system that is simple and fair and underpins low rates of taxation. Our tax system is notoriously complicated. We might laud the Chancellor’s super-deduction for investment expenditure, which my noble friend the Minister referred to, but that too is another layer of complication. A top rate of 25% is not a good destination, and I hope that it is allowed to fall by the wayside once the economy starts to prosper. Any thought of raising the top rate of income tax or capital gains tax rates would be a mistake, as the Treasury’s existing analysis undoubtedly already shows. High rates of tax are not accompanied by high yields—quite the reverse.
Education has taken a big hit during the pandemic, in schools and universities, and a priority for the Government must be to ensure that those entering the job market for the first time have all the skills that employers actually need. Now is also a good time to look again at higher education. We are still churning out too many graduates with degrees that do little to make young people fit for the world of work. It is no surprise that up to 25% of graduates fail to deliver a lifetime earnings premium that justifies the cost of student loans.
Lastly, the Government should ensure that British businesses can exploit export growth markets. I do not mean those sluggish economies the other side of the channel, guarded by EU red tape. The Government are doing great things through the Department for International Trade, with more than 60 trade treaties already in the bag and more on the way, including the CPTTP. Helping businesses to understand those opportunities in these exciting markets will be money well spent. We must put this pandemic era behind us as soon as possible and return to being a country of liberty and economic opportunity. That is the only certain way of securing jobs and livelihoods for the future.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to take part in this timely and important debate and, in particular, to follow the thoughtful contribution of my noble friend Lady Noakes. Although she clearly feels that the Government have perhaps put too great an emphasis on protecting the health service from the cost of the economic impact, she highlighted the challenge that they faced in their approach. In effect, we are talking about the three points of a triangle: one point represents the economic impact; one point represents the physical impact; and the third point represents the welfare of the nation. In trying to keep the ball in the middle of that triangle, as soon as you protect one corner, it has a disproportionate impact on the other two. In hindsight, the Government may not have got it entirely right, but I for one do not underestimate the challenge that they faced in trying to maintain a balance between those points of the triangle.
In my brief comments, I want to cover two distinct areas. First, I want to recognise the contribution that the Government have made in delivering financial support to the economy. Secondly, as a key plank in helping to deliver the economic recovery as we transition from these emergency measures, I urge the Government to look carefully at the ways in which we can support individuals, not only through updating and maintaining their skills but potentially through retraining them to ensure that we as a nation have the skilled workforce that we need.
As we have heard, there can be little doubt that the Government have stepped up to the plate and delivered when it comes to offering the economy financial support throughout the crisis, seeking as they have to protect people’s jobs and livelihoods while also supporting business and public services. As of the end of February, the Government claimed in their response to the Economic Affairs Committee’s report on Covid and the economy to have
“spent over £280 billion since March 2020”.
This has already been updated to £352 billion, and is still rising.
In its report, The Cost of Coronavirus, the Institute for Government states:
“The deficit is now expected to be £394bn in 2020/21, which is £339bn higher than had been anticipated before public health restrictions were first imposed back in March.”
I find it remarkable that some still claim that the Government have not done enough. Of course, the deficit is set to be so extraordinarily high because, as the Institute for Government states:
“The government has taken a raft of actions in response to coronavirus, most of which have involved additional spending. These can be divided into three areas: support for businesses, support for households and support for public services.”
Although the exact figures are still unknown, the Institute for Government conservatively estimates:
“Additional support to help businesses weather coronavirus is expected to cost £66bn. Of this, £44bn”
has been in the form of loans, tax deferrals, business rates relief, and general and sector-specific
“grants to businesses in badly affected sectors (such as hospitality and leisure).”
That area was mentioned by my noble friend Lady Noakes.
The Institute for Government goes on to say that “the remainder”—£22 billion—“is through tax changes” and further states:
“The biggest single cost is the anticipated future write-off of loans which the government has guaranteed. In total, £87bn is expected to be loaned to businesses under three separate schemes. Of that, the government is expected to have to foot the bill for £31bn that is expected never to be repaid.”
This, I confess, causes me some concern. Of course some businesses will not recover and will be unable to pay back loans but, equally, I hope that my noble friend the Minister can reassure me that the Government will not be too quick to write off loans but, rather, will work closely with the private sector to put in place realistic schemes where at least part of these loans might be recovered for the public purse without hampering growth.
As the Institute for Government states:
“Support for households has been provided through three policies … First, existing benefits have been made more generous, most importantly through a £20-per-week increase in Universal Credit payments”.
Given the pandemic, that is a reasonable move. However, I urge my noble friend to resist the calls for an early decision on whether this should be made permanent or at least not end until the autumn.
Of course, the largest programme of support is the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme, or furlough scheme. As the Institute for Government states:
“At its height, it supported over nine million jobs”.
It has undoubtedly been a lifeline for many families across the UK, as the third strand—the Self-employment Income Support Scheme—equally has been. I welcome the fact that both these schemes will be extended until September.
It is clear that the economic package of support, which continues to provide businesses and individuals with certainty over this period, has been one of the most generous in the world. Although we can rightly be proud of that, it presents some major challenges—the obvious one being how the nation will pay for it, which my noble friend the Minister addressed in part in her opening remarks. There are also secondary challenges, such as those faced by some of the workforce. Through no fault of their own, they have not only got out of the routine of work but may find that their skills are out of date. Indeed, they may face the prospect of being forced to retrain as their jobs—or whole sectors, in some cases—simply do not exist anymore.
As we look to the future, there is little doubt that much will never be quite the same again as the nation adapts to new ways of working and, in particular, the use of technology becomes the norm. Some might view this as a threat, but I genuinely believe that it is an opportunity to be grasped. While working from home is neither possible nor suitable for everybody, the opportunities and flexibility it brings will, I hope, continue to be encouraged and recognised by government, not least for the positive environmental impact it has through a reduction of vehicle journeys. There are, of course, downsides. We are social beasts and human interaction plays an important part in our lives, so clearly a balance needs to be struck.
As I have mentioned, for some it will simply not be possible to return to their previous profession. I will briefly turn to the need and opportunity to retrain and the support offered by government. In recognising the need for some to retrain if the economy rebalances itself as part of our road to recovery, I note that there has been some criticism that the Government have not made training more integral to schemes such as the CJR scheme. This is probably an unfair criticism, not least because of the speed with which this and other schemes had to be introduced, but also due to the underlying desire to keep schemes simple to administer and access.
In reality, the CJR scheme has never presented a barrier to training. Employees can undertake training while on furlough, and existing schemes provide an appropriate route for employers to access high-quality training and prepare individuals for the jobs of the future. It is also, of course, why the 2020 spending review committed funding for the Prime Minister’s lifetime skills guarantee, which will help adults to retrain and get into sustainable jobs, and give employers the skilled workers that they need.
The offer of free qualifications at level 3 for eligible adults in courses focused on these skills is welcome, and the full list of free level 3 courses for adult was published in February. While it is comprehensive, I ask my noble friend: what plans are there to review this list of courses to ensure that they mirror the skills employers require? I am equally pleased to see that the Department for Education has introduced flexibilities to ensure that furloughed apprentices can continue their training and assessments.
It is right that the Government have put front and centre access to skills and training, especially for those unemployed or at risk of unemployment as part of their economic response to the crisis. The approach of offering these schemes in parallel to employment support schemes such as the CJR, rather than wrapping them together and running the risk of making them overly complex, is, on balance, the right approach.
However, there is one area that has in my view been overlooked and that I will press my noble friend on: the opportunity for adults to retrain at degree level through distance learning for equivalent or lower qualifications. I should declare my interest in and long links with the Open University, whose headquarters are based in my former constituency in Milton Keynes. As the Minister might been aware, it has been a bone of contention for some time that those who already have a degree and are studying for an equivalent or lower qualification cannot access the same level of support that those studying for their first degree can. This dates back to a decision made by the last Labour Government and is, in my view, a mistake, especially now as so many adults look to retrain.
I simply ask my noble friend whether now is the time for the Government to look again at this issue. It also raises the wider point that, as people may look to update or refresh their skills, the reality is that they will be unable to study full-time but will look to institutions such as the OU to study part-time while continuing to work. For some time now the part-time sector has been disadvantaged in the support offered by government. Given the sector’s obvious importance, I seek assurance from my noble friend that the Government will look with fresh eyes post pandemic at the opportunities that institutions such as the Open University offer when it comes to delivering the skills we will need to recover from the pandemic.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton. I agree with much of what he said, particularly his endorsement of the Open University, which has always seemed an admirable substitute for three years spent away from home living the high life.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, for the way she introduced the debate so comprehensively. As many have said, the Government have done much that should be applauded since Covid struck. The furlough scheme was introduced promptly and has been very effective. However, we know that job losses have hit younger people, women and ethnic minorities particularly hard. It is a statistic that should make anyone feel uncomfortable that between the third quarter of 2019 and the third quarter of 2020 the number of white women in employment fell by 1%, and the number of black, African and mixed ethnic women in employment fell by 17%. Are there any specific plans for dealing with that very specific issue?
It is also the case that, inevitably, school closures impacted particularly on women, yet 70% of furlough requests from women with caring responsibilities were denied. While the Government cannot redress that now, it highlights the importance of childcare in enabling carers to work effectively in the workplace. The Government have been proactive in providing help such as rate relief to nurseries, but the issue of adequate childcare will continue to have an impact on workers long after Covid. Could the Minister say whether the Government have plans to do more on this front, beyond the existing nursery vouchers, as we try to rebuild the economy?
This could of course have a big impact on productivity. Interestingly, the ONS has reported that productivity actually rose by 0.4% last year, despite the deepest recession for 300 years. This highlights the deep division in productivity levels across our economy, an issue that we have failed to get to grips with for many years. The food and beverage sector, one of the major employers, was forced to close for large parts of the year; ironically, that produced a statistical boost to productivity because that is one of the sectors that is 54% less productive than the average for the economy. The high-productivity sectors—accounting and computer and legal services, for instance—were largely able to continue, working remotely, and they bring a great benefit to the economy, as we know. Low productivity continues to be a drag on our economy and will be for many years to come, unless we come up with some very positive ways of addressing it. It is clearly important that our development of the economy requires that we find ways not just of increasing our involvement in already high-productivity sectors but of increasing the low productivity in other sectors. Industrialisation was the first step, but we now need to make sure that every sector makes full use of computers, information technology and, eventually, artificial intelligence.
This takes me to the Government’s industrial strategy, which has had many incarnations, the last of which—before Covid—was announced by Theresa May in 2017. It was after that that the Industrial Strategy Council was launched, under the chairmanship of Andy Haldane, the chief economist at the Bank of England and a man renowned for his sometimes off-the-wall thinking—but he is always someone who comes up with ideas. Since the Government have revealed their Build Back Better strategy and plans to invest in the green economy, science et cetera, there is a slightly different industrial strategy to that of 2017. However, this year, the Government also abandoned their Industrial Strategy Council. It seems unnecessary to dispense with the services of a dozen very well-qualified people, who were prepared to bring their brains and ideas to bear to determine whether we are actually pursuing the strategy in the most effective way. Could the Minister say what external scrutiny might now be employed to monitor the Government’s progress in their industrial strategy, since we have abandoned the very effective mechanism that was in place?
Part of that strategy should include providing for all the needs of the country. While the Government are providing a host of different retraining awards, most are aimed at technology, but there are other needs that will have to be met. The Resolution Foundation has pointed out that the social care sector needs 180,000 new workers if it is to bring back the ratio of staff to carers that existed in 2014. This is one of the sectors where technology can improve things only so far; it is people—real-life carers—who are required. This fact was pointed out by the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee in its report on Employment and COVID-19, published in December. It called on the Government to
“significantly expand the number of social care workers by increasing funding in the sector with stipulations that funding should be used to raise wages and improve training”.
The Government responded to that report in February this year. They simply ignored this recommendation, so I take this opportunity to ask the Minister whether she can now respond to this very sensible recommendation.
I turn to the businesses that need government support to survive the difficulties imposed by Covid and to rebuild for the future. The Government have instituted a series of measures that have been well received, including grants and loans, but this was surely the opportunity for the Government to establish a sovereign wealth fund, taking equity stakes in businesses. Many organisations called for this, hoping that Britain could take the opportunity to invest some taxpayers’ money not for the short-term effect of buoying up businesses that may or may not survive but for a long-term return, as countries such as Norway have done. In April last year, the Government announced that they would take a small step in that direction with the launch of the Future Fund, operated by the British Business Bank. With a minimum interest rate of 8%, I am not sure whether many companies, even those in dire straits, would have found this an attractive prospect. However, the idea was that the initial loans would be convertible into equity. The scheme was announced in April last year, with a closing date of September last year. That date was then extended to 20 April this year. If a company was struggling in April last year, it may well not have survived until now. Surely, speed was of the essence for such a scheme. Since the scheme closed today, I doubt that the Minister can give the exact number of companies that tried to take advantage of it, but perhaps she can give us an indication of how many companies have put forward their interest in the scheme.
There are positive things that the Government can do to stimulate the economy, but there are things they can do that will positively harm the recovery. I single out one in particular. From January this year, the Government ceased to allow duty-free shopping for those from outside the EU. The UK Travel Retail Forum believes that this puts 70,000 jobs at risk. Duty-free shopping brings in extra tourists, particularly from wealthy areas such as the Far East. Here I declare an interest as chairman of the Association of Leading Visitor Attractions, which is desperately upset at the end to this encouragement to visitors from overseas to come and make the most of the British economy. If they cannot do their duty-free shopping here, they will go elsewhere. So my final question for the Minister is: will the Government please think again about delivering such a body blow to a sector that has been one of the hardest hit by Covid?
Baroness Hooper (Con)
My Lords, faced with the triple effects of climate change, the global pandemic and Brexit, our economy—indeed, every economy in the world—is seeking solutions. Not all have the added strain of Brexit, of course, but on that basis it may well be that our experience and solutions could be shared with other countries, perhaps particularly with Commonwealth countries.
On the basis that, in order to build a new future, the role of government is to create the right environment to develop new ideas, create jobs and, as a free-trading nation, stimulate exports across a wide spectrum, the Government have clearly aimed to do this and have looked hard and well at solutions. I am grateful not only to my noble friend the Minister for her explanations today but to HMT for its useful background briefing.
I approach this from my perspective as a fairly new trade envoy, having been appointed last year, to Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic and Panama, and from my long-time background as a vice-president of Canning House, encouraging more trade with Latin American countries, leading trade delegations to those countries, and welcoming chambers of commerce and other leading industrialists from those countries. I must say that one beneficial result of Brexit is that the Government and businesspeople are looking for new markets and are well on the way to promoting and recognising trade opportunities in Latin America. The spread of Covid-19 has undoubtedly slowed down the process, and we need boots on the ground; we have to get people going out and looking for opportunities, which are now enabled by free trade agreements.
In all this, the Department for International Trade should be mentioned as a shining example of getting on with the job. First, it has negotiated new free trade agreements. Admittedly, many of those were rolled over from our EU days—the first, incidentally, was with Chile, in South America—but others, such as the Japan treaty, have brought in new, innovative and important sectors. Secondly, it has created a network worldwide of trade commissioners and support for our embassies as well as for the work of the voluntary trade envoys, all of which has, of course, been supported by the Treasury. Thirdly, it is delivering economic growth to all regions of the United Kingdom by encouraging new products to be manufactured, as well as services, for the export market.
I would like to dwell on that for a moment, because two excellent examples of regional activity can be seen in the northern powerhouse and the Midlands Engine, which co-ordinate and stimulate local industries and are preparing, as soon as it is possible to move around the world—they are already preparing virtually—to lead the sort of trade missions that I have mentioned to other parts of the world. I have a particular link with Liverpool, so I would like to mention that, here within Parliament, the All-Party Parliamentary Group for the Liverpool City Region is conducting an inquiry on building back better, which is currently looking at green travel, using low-carbon and hydrogen, and the role of ports. I hope to be very much involved with that.
I would also like to take this opportunity to emphasise the importance of joined-up government in our recovery from Covid. The Treasury, obviously, has the leading role, especially in the context of today’s debate. I am told that double tax treaties can be just as important for exports as free trade agreements, so of course the Treasury has a role there. I appreciate that the Treasury has consulted many bodies, but I hope that it will continue, along with other government departments, to monitor and consider the developments resulting from this package that we are considering.
My particular sectoral interests lie in education, energy and health—I spent time as the Lords Minister in all those departments—which are all regarded as priority areas both for trade opportunities and for the full national recovery from Covid. Some of those instances have already been mentioned.
Can my noble friend tell us if a cross-departmental mechanism has been set up to perform this ongoing role? I realise that co-ordination happens in Cabinet, but it does not always necessarily filter through to other levels in departments. If we are going to be efficient and successful, it is essential to have that sort of co-ordination.
The Government’s economic package to support and protect jobs, businesses and public services, and indeed this debate, is very welcome and important in highlighting all the issues.
Lord Horam (Con)
My Lords, macroeconomic policy is central to any discussion of jobs and livelihoods. I think the world economy is set for a very interesting period; many forecasters are predicting a roaring Twenties similar to the one following the Spanish flu in the 1920s, and they could be right. That is good news for the UK and jobs in the UK. As the Minister put it, there are certainly “reasons for optimism.”
We are particularly lucky that the Biden Administration have hit the ground running and initiated not one but two enormous stimuli. The first was a $1.9 trillion injection—what we call helicopter money—going straight into people’s pockets. This gives a wholly new and more favourable meaning to the phrase “the cheque is in the post.” A family on $145,000 a year gets $7,000 extra to spend. On top of this there is a second tranche, partly funded by increased taxes, to upgrade human and physical capital. Anyone who knows the USA very well would agree that that is necessary. The Federal Bank is further supporting this by committing to buying government bonds for the rest of the year to keep interest rates down.
The other bit of good news from the US is that President Biden is proposing a minimum global corporation tax. I agree that this will face a tough time in Congress but, if it comes to pass, it is estimated that the UK would stand to benefit to the tune of over £3 billion per year. This shows how much tax dodging is being done by international corporations. All of this shows the benefit to the world of having a sensible guy in the White House with economically literate advisers.
The US approach fits very well with what is called modern monetary theory, which has a lot to be said for it. MMT is not actually very modern. It was spelled out by American economist Abba Lerner at the same time as John Maynard Keynes, the greatest economist of all time, was doing his thinking in Cambridge. For today’s readers it is spelt out in a book called The Deficit Myth by Stephanie Kelton, and I hope that it is required reading in the Treasury. It says that the important thing is to balance the economy, not the budget. If you prioritise growth, you will get growth and be better able to pay off the deficit. If you prioritise cutting the deficit, you will lose growth and find it harder to bring down the deficit, as well as do social and economic damage.
MMT, despite having the same initials, is not a magic money tree. It recognises that if you ramp up demand too much, you will cause inflation. If that happens, you will have to increase taxes to take the steam out of the economy. So far, I am glad to say that the Chancellor has gone along with this vein of thinking and has been willing to spend without worrying too much about the budget deficit. Indeed, he has even received praise from Martin Wolf, the FT’s chief economic adviser, who spent the last 10 years criticising Conservative and coalition Governments. Martin Wolf made the point that, at the moment,
“it makes sense for the government to borrow to spend”.
As an old FT man myself, I am pleased that they are at last on board. The European Union, by the way, is a bit of a lagger on all this. Christine Lagarde, the current boss of the European Central Bank, has said that the eurozone should boost spending by 3.5% of GDP. I certainly hope that it follows her advice.
So the macroeconomic prospects are good and we can look forward, I think, to two or three years of strong economic growth, which is essential for jobs and living standards. The vital question, as always, is how the money will be spent. Everyone will have their own views on this, and many have been aired in this debate, but I will suggest two, and I hope that the Minister will comment on them.
The first is the relief of poverty. Poor people with few means have had a very tough time in this pandemic, and undoubtedly the number of people in poverty has increased. What this means is that we must get universal credit right. I was appalled to read that HMRC was trying to claw back money from people on UC who were accidentally overpaid, in some cases many years ago. This is absolutely deplorable, and I would like to know from the Minister what has been done to curb this distasteful practice. I note, by the way, the comment of the retiring chief constable of Merseyside, who said that increased crime was caused by increased poverty, and that if the Government were to give him an extra £5 million to spend, he would spend only £1 million on increasing policing and £4 million on trying to reduce poverty.
The second issue I will raise, which is vital for the future of jobs, is technical education. As an economist said in the Times only yesterday, it is time for apprenticeships to take centre stage. There must be a much bigger and better organised push by government to get companies to contribute more to workplace training. I heard what my noble friend Lady Penn said in her opening remarks, and I certainly hope that that will prove adequate. We do need something big and well organised. There should also be more support for the further education sector, which has not received the sort of attention we have lavished on universities. I totally agree with my noble friend Lady Noakes about degrees. The fact is that a thriving FE sector is not only a key to economic growth but utterly crucial to the levelling-up agenda that is at the heart of this Government’s approach to the economy.
So we are, in my view, at the beginning of a period of great opportunity, and I hope that this time we can get it right.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con) [V]
My Lords, this is a great opportunity to talk about the British economy and how we will recover from the pandemic. If you had asked me a few months ago what kind of economy we would be facing, I would have predicted that it would be completely wrecked. But, though I am not a trained economist, the economy seems to be doing much better than expected. We have lower unemployment than we expected, we have a booming stock market and we have rising house prices. Those are not necessarily good news for everyone in our country, but they are certainly very strong economic indicators that we will recover very quickly as we move out of the pandemic. Certainly anecdotally, looking around as we gradually unlock, the ability of hospitality businesses, for example, to start catering for people has been very welcome indeed.
I have to say that the Government deserve a lot of credit for the position we are in today. I was one of the people who was quite happy to jump on the bandwagon a year ago and highlight some of the mistakes the Government might have been making, and certainly I have a great deal of sympathy with what my noble friend Lady Noakes said earlier about there being far too much emphasis on lockdown and not enough on the impact on mental and physical health and on our economy. Having said that, I certainly think that the road map out of lockdown that the Government set out a few months ago and have adhered to, and the enormously successful vaccine rollout programme, are two things for which they deserve a great deal of praise.
My noble friend Lady Penn laid out in great detail some of the financial and direct support that the Government have provided to the economy over the past year, and, as other noble Lords have pointed out, the figures are pretty staggering: some £352 billion of support; 1.3 million employers taking advantage of the furlough schemes, supporting 11.5 million jobs, at a cost of £58 billion; 1.63 million loans to businesses, at a value of £75 billion; 2.7 million people benefiting from the self-employed scheme; £5 billion in restart grants for hospitality; the recovery loan scheme; and taxes forgone, such as the business rates holiday and the reduced VAT rate for tourism and hospitality. There are also some innovations which may stick: for example, the Future Fund where the Government have invested, alongside private investors, to support innovative new tech companies. Obviously, something close to my heart is the £1.57 billion that the Government have provided to support the arts during this very difficult time. Those are all measures which I think have been welcomed.
I would say partly as an aside, having said earlier that I am quick to jump on the odd bandwagon if the Government make a mistake, that it is worth pointing out the dogs which have not barked. A lot of the work done over the years by the Government Digital Service really came to fruition during this time. I certainly found, again anecdotally, from people I know who applied for bounce-back loans and so on that they found the technology process of applying online—this is not an insignificant point, and it also applies to universal credit, which my noble friend Lord Horam talked about earlier—to be very smooth and easy. That is no mean achievement.
However, I want to use my brief remarks to look forward. This is perhaps a chance for me to play fantasy politics: what I would do if I were in charge and able to wave a magic wand to help transform the British economy? I feel this yearning for Britain to really lean into the fact that we are a modern, digital economy. We have enormous opportunities to lead the world in various economic sectors. Perhaps I may pick up on what my noble friend Lord Horam said earlier—I am sorry that I did not begin my remarks by praising his excellent speech—when he rightly focused on the importance of technical education and further education. No one wanted our children to be educated from home on Zoom calls but we are certainly long overdue a revolution in our school system. It is a common and very boring refrain of mine that any of our Victorian ancestors could wander into almost any school and feel quite at home. We really need to focus on digital skills and to carry on a revolution, which the previous Government started, so that apprenticeships and technical education can begin to take on the same status as academic education and education becomes flexible, with the opportunity for people to dip in and out, and to upgrade their skills when necessary.
The skills of the future that we need are for the economic growth sectors of the future. We will be hosting COP 26 at the end of this year. We already see that cities such as Hull, for example, are booming thanks to the investment in renewable energy. Britain has a great opportunity to take advantage of renewable technology, yet we seem still not be leaning into this. It is a win-win, providing us with not only measures to combat climate change but energy security and technology leadership. The same goes for the space sector, which is linked quite closely to climate change given the ability to make an impact on climate change by using satellite technology. In the week when NASA has flown its helicopter in the first flight outside our atmosphere, we in the UK also have a massive opportunity to take the lead in space technology. As the former MP for the Satellite Applications Catapult, this too is a sector close to my heart.
I mentioned earlier the Future Fund which the Government have created. We are the technology capital of Europe; we have more start-ups than France and Germany combined but do not yet have a strategy to ensure that those start-ups become scale-ups. In fact the most successful scale-up company created recently was probably the European super league, which the Government are now busily trying to stop.
I take note of the fintech review by Ron Kalifa, which shone a light on a sector where Britain, again, has natural leadership. I would like to see the Government lean in on that and to implement the Hill review to ensure that great British companies can float in this country. I am looking forward as well to the ARPA legislation, which again shows the Government’s intent to lean into modern and future technology.
Finally, I would point to the boring, old but very important issue of infrastructure: broadband and 5G, but also roads and HS2. There has to be an opportunity to renew our infrastructure in this country, as President Biden is doing across the pond.
Coming out of the pandemic feels like coming out of a war. When we came out of the last war, we came out with the Beveridge report, which shaped British politics for 30 or 40 years. I hope that the Government can put together all the wonderful initiatives that they are overseeing into a really compelling narrative of what the modern British digital economy could look like in the future.
I will conclude simply by referring to the industries that I am really passionate about: the creative industries and the cultural industries. I noted before the pandemic how the film industry had contributed to our economic growth and helped us to avoid going into recession. I hope that the Government will support the creative industries and our cultural industries as much as possible.
I noted what my noble friend Lady Wheatcroft said earlier about the tax rise imposed on duty-free shopping, which is going to hit our tourism and luxury goods industries in the solar plexus. The Government need, where possible, to join up their thinking, identify the fantastic strengths that we have in this economy, bounce back from the incredibly successful way they have managed the pandemic over the past few months and take Britain forward.
Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to take part in the debate and to follow my noble friend Lord Vaizey, whose optimism and view of technology and what can be done I very much agree with.
As my noble friend Lady Penn reminded us when she introduced this debate with an excellent speech, the Government should be rightly proud of their economic record over the past 12 months. They have avoided what could have become the catastrophe of mass unemployment. Facing a 10% fall in output—one of the largest ever falls in peacetime—great global uncertainty and the knock-on effects of Brexit, the Chancellor, Rishi Sunak, acted decisively and boldly to support jobs and business. Over the past year, the Chancellor has kept on announcing new measures, slightly adjusting the policy as required. The result is that unemployment today is far lower than forecast last year and an economic recovery is well under way. The official estimate for GDP growth this year, even in the Budget, was only 4%. I say that because, by contrast, some reputable forecasts have put it at nearly double that figure for this year, followed by another 5% to 6% next year. As my noble friend Lord Lilley suggested, the potential of a market economy to create prosperity is truly remarkable.
We heard from my noble friend Lady Penn in her opening speech of the endless measures the Government have introduced to deal with the pandemic crisis. People will say that much more could have been done. I shall comment on two aspects. Two-thirds of the rise in unemployment over the past year has been among the under-25s. We have youth unemployment of nearly 1 million in the UK. This is an extraordinary, depressing and dispiriting form of rejection for young people. The longer a person is out of work, the more long-term damage is done to their career and livelihood, involving long-term unemployment and permanently reduced earning power. They are frequently the last to be hired and the first to be let go. The evidence of the damage done in Spain and Greece over the past decade should concern us.
I have no doubt that it will take years, not months, to tackle the problem. The Government will rightly say that they are aware of it and have taken a number of steps to deal with it, and today’s announcement of flexible apprenticeships is absolutely welcome. However, I have a nagging concern that we could be doing more in a co-ordinated way, with one Minister wholly responsible for driving the policy. I am not suggesting I have easy answers, but I believe the problem is a festering sore in our society and something easily exploited by subversive ideologies.
The second area I want to comment on is investment. It is clear that the Chancellor’s intention is that this recovery should be investment led, hence the provision of the super-deduction tax break on investment spending. It seems that certain industries, such as construction and IT, will not be eligible for the tax break because they lease or hire short term rather than buy. In view of the importance of investment for this recovery and for longer-term growth, does the Minister not think that this area should be looked at again?
As I hope is clear, I am wholly supportive of the Government’s commitment to the recovery and to the return of full employment. But, as my noble friend Lady Penn mentioned in her opening speech, the debate is an attempt also to review what has been done. However, I have two have major concerns for the future and believe that the present is the time to begin to address them.
While the sun is shining, it is very easy for any Government—we have seen it in the past—to postpone taking the decisions that are critical if recovery is to be sustained and stronger economic growth achieved, so that we have growth not just this year and next year but in the following years as well. In this context, the Government must be prepared to allow a structural challenge in the economy to take place. The fact that the bank rate is at 0.1%, the lowest in the Bank of England’s 374-year history, while the recovery is roaring ahead, gives no incentives for heavily indebted companies, popularly termed “zombie companies”, to put their house in order. These companies can just about manage to pay interest on their debt but have little chance of ever repaying the debt itself. However, they employ capital and people who could be much better employed from society’s point of view in new and growing firms, using state-of-the-art technology, leading to higher productivity. The Government must allow this change to take place. Of course, there will always be exceptions for individual firms, which can be accommodated by special assistance. However, for the change to take place, the time has come for the Bank of England to begin changing the stance of monetary policy.
The Bank is committed constitutionally to working with the Treasury and not against it, even though it has operational independence. When a year ago the pandemic hit, the Treasury, the OBR and the Bank of England assumed that the major problem we faced would be deflation. As a result, the Bank cut the basic rate to 0.1%. It has continued with that low interest rate ever since, as well as extending the policy of quantitative easing: namely, increasing liquidity in the economy each month. It also alerted the banking system to the possibility of negative rates. However, I believe that deflation is no longer a realistic prospect, and that is the tone of today’s debate. If the Bank wishes to continue with a policy of quantitative easing and keeping interest rates at rock-bottom level, it must set out its case in detail, accompanied by evidence to back it up. I do not believe it is doing that at present.
Such a change made by the Bank in resetting monetary policy would help the Treasury in another way. The Chancellor has been decisive and bold in tackling the pandemic crisis, but it has involved a huge increase in public spending and an aggressive easing of monetary policy. To pay for the increase in the excess of expenditure over taxation, we have to borrow at an unprecedented rate for peacetime, and this will fall on those who will pay the tax—maybe not those of us taking part in debate but our children and grandchildren. To do this and keep interest rates low, the money supply has expanded by 15% over the past year.
The lead letter in the Financial Times today was from the Shadow Monetary Policy Committee, chaired by Tim Congdon, warning of the dangers of what is happening. It has been evident for some time now that the combination of this extraordinary fiscal stimulus and aggressive monetary easing has raised the spectre of inflation. The public do not like inflation; they feel cheated by higher prices. We know from the history of the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s that, while it initially stimulates employment, inflation—when it has run its course—ultimately destroys jobs.
In my judgment, the return of inflation will prove no friend of the Chancellor in protecting long-term jobs in the UK economy, which is another reason our success in the recovery must be set within a long-term monetary and fiscal framework, rather than just the immediate future. I believe this requires no major policy changes but a signal from the fiscal and monetary authorities that they are determined to keep the rate of inflation at its present objective level of 2%.
Lord Bilimoria (CB) [V]
My Lords, the world’s most defining crises come out of the blue, unpredicted, and when they happen their outcomes are also uncertain. This global pandemic came out of the blue last year. It has been a supply shock, a demand shock, a health crisis and an economic crisis, with a domino effect reverberating around the world.
The challenge for government has been enormous from day one, and right up front I give credit to the Government, including Chancellor Rishi Sunak and his team, for acting with speed from March last year to try to help save businesses and jobs against the backdrop of enormous uncertainty and ambiguity and a virus we have been learning about every day. There have been ground-breaking initiatives such as the furlough scheme, protecting well over 10 million jobs, and more than £400 billion in support, which in absolute or per capita terms is one of the highest levels of support given by any Government to their economy, businesses and citizens.
Furthermore, the Government have continually listened to business and organisations such as the CBI, of which I am proud to be president, by being flexible and extending schemes when required. For example, the job retention scheme was due to end in May 2020 and has been extended periodically; it has now been extended by the Chancellor until September.
The VAT reduction from 20% to 5% has been extended; this will help hospitality businesses in particular. Hospitality and tourism employ 4 million people. This industry has been decimated by the pandemic. I know from my own business, Cobra Beer, which supplies 7,000 restaurants, how much the sector has suffered. What use is a VAT cut if your business is not open? It is absolutely right for the Government to extend this as the economy opens up, so that businesses and consumers can avail themselves of this measure when businesses are actually open. The Government have also extended the business rates holiday for hospitality, leisure and tourism.
There is also loss carry-back on corporation tax to help firms manage exceptional losses, and government-guaranteed loans have helped millions of businesses and jobs. Full credit goes to the British Business Bank. To think that before the pandemic the British Business Bank had a loan book of £8 billion. To date, as the Minister said, it has lent over £75 billion to 1.63 million businesses, including the 100% guaranteed bounce-back loans. In fact, government-guaranteed loan support has covered businesses of all sizes, from small businesses to multinationals getting support directly from the Bank of England. There has also been the £10 billion insurance, the trade credit guarantee. The Kickstart Scheme is excellent, but will the Government consider extending it by six months after December 2021 to give businesses a chance to benefit from it?
As a result of all these measures the Government have taken, unemployment—which was at 3.5% before the pandemic, one of the lowest levels since the 1970s—is today at only 5.1%. To put this in perspective, after the financial crisis of 2008-09, unemployment went up to nearly 10%. All these measures the Government have taken have saved jobs and businesses so that, when the recovery starts this summer, it will be able to unleash the “coiled spring” that Andy Haldane, the chief economist of the Bank of England, spoke of.
The Government need to encourage investment and the super-deduction is a super initiative, but the prospect of corporation tax rising to 25% in two years is a concern, as nothing should jeopardise the UK being a magnet for inward investment—consistently the second or third-largest recipient of inward investment in the world. Investment is needed so that we can continue to invest in R&D and innovation, currently at 1.7% of GDP. It needs to go up to the level of Germany and America, 2.8% of GDP. Just imagine that extra 1%, that extra £20 billion. That would power our productivity and power our economy forward.
One of the key messages of the pandemic has been the power of collaboration—businesses, universities and government working together, including globally. There is no better example of this than the Prime Minister creating the Vaccine Taskforce and appointing Kate Bingham from the private sector on 18 May last year. Hats off to her and her team on procuring 400 million doses of six different vaccines, with the first vaccination taking place less than seven months later on 8 December—V-day. That was through Oxford and AstraZeneca, a British-Swedish firm headquartered in Cambridge, collaborating with the Serum Institute of India and the Poonawalla family, the largest vaccine manufacturers in the world, with a 1 billion dose contract for the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine. That is global Britain in action, and today we have one of the most successful vaccination programmes in the world. Hats off to our Vaccines Minister, Nadhim Zahawi, for 33 million first doses and 10 million second doses already having been delivered in four and a half months.
The Prime Minister’s road map has offered hope. Schools reopened on 8 March, with little discernible rise in cases. However, the hospitality industry still has to wait until 17 May for inside drinking and dining—this after the industry has put so much time and effort into making premises Covid-safe. Where is the evidence of Covid spreading in Covid-secure hospitality venues? They need to open as soon as possible.
Could the Minister also confirm that the reopening of the economy is being driven by data, not dates? If the sad deaths and hospital admissions go down to zero, which has already started to happen in certain parts of the country, the economy can open up quicker, including hospitality. Could the Government confirm that?
From last summer I have been calling for the national rollout of rapid, affordable mass lateral flow testing. I am grateful that the Government finally listened and in November started to implement it.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)
My Lords, the voting period has now elapsed, and we are ready to resume. I invite the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, to continue his speech.
Lord Bilimoria (CB) [V]
Today, not only do all businesses, of all sizes, have access to these tests but every citizen of the country can get them free, so people can test themselves regularly. It has been shown that testing two or three times a week picks up asymptomatic infectious cases. The cost benefit of this in keeping on top of the virus, in conjunction with vaccinations, is overwhelming.
Another aspect that not many people talk about is this: could the Government put the same focus, energy and investment as they did into the vaccination programme into turbo-charging, at speed, the research and trials for authorising repurposed therapeutics and drugs? Dexamethasone was the first, but there are quite a few others, including ivermectin, which could possibly cure over 80% of Covid cases. Such drugs, if proven, would literally be game-changers against this wretched virus.
With Britain ahead of the game in vaccinations and mass testing, we need to come up with a practical, affordable and risk-minimising travel protocol that allows both business and tourist travel, both ways, as soon as possible, using lateral flow tests as much as possible. The aviation and travel and tourism sectors have been destroyed by the pandemic; they need all the help that they can get to recover.
In the opening up, there also needs to be clarity on working from home, which, of course, is linked to public transport, the wearing of masks and the eventual elimination of social distancing. We need clarity on all these measures—can the Minister give us some, including on how Covid status certificates could operate in practice? Research that we have done at the CBI shows that businesses believe that Covid certification should be voluntary, science-led and time-limited, based on proof of either vaccination or a negative coronavirus result, simple to use and consistent across all four nations of the UK—do the Government agree?
Finally, as chancellor of the University of Birmingham, I have seen first-hand the efforts that universities have made to be Covid-secure, including the implementation of testing. Schools have been open since 8 March, but universities will not be able to open up until 17 May. Young people have lost out on so much during this pandemic as it is: university students have missed out on being on campus and on face-to-face teaching, and now, in the final term of the year—for many students, the final term of their university degree—they are being prevented from returning to the classroom. The vice-chancellor of the University of Portsmouth described the move to open up on 17 May as nonsensical and “unfathomable”, saying:
“That this date is after many universities will have finished their teaching year shows a Government with a cavalier disregard for details. This isn’t good enough … Students can now buy a book on British history in Waterstones and discuss it with a tattoo artist while they have their body decorated, but they cannot do the same thing in a COVID-secure environment with their university lecturer.”
The vice-chancellor of the University of York described the timing as “very late” and “disrespectful”. The president of UUK described it as “illogical”. The chief executive of the Russell group said:
“The Government’s announcement … means that … one million university students will be unable to resume in-person teaching until at least mid-May ... the Government’s decision … is a major blow. It fails to take into account the data which shows the safety of teaching spaces, and the very low infection rates at universities right now, despite the majority of students being on campus. We urge the Government to reconsider its decision to ensure these students are not forgotten and can resume in-person teaching as soon as possible.”
The response from the Government, including to universities and business, is:
“The movement of students across the country poses a risk for the transmission of the virus.”
Where is the sense in that? First, universities are offering regular testing when students arrive on campus. Secondly, the majority of students stay in digs, in their own private accommodation, near the university. There is nothing that the Government or universities can do to stop them returning to their homes. In fact, thousands of students have already done this. The move to open universities on 17 May is unfair, unjust, illogical and irrational for students, universities and our economy. Our students should be allowed to go back to university tomorrow, 21 April—not 17 May.
Earlier in my speech, I gave the Government credit for listening to business throughout the pandemic and for collaborating with organisations such as the CBI. We are very grateful for that. These are not U-turns; this is not flip-flopping, but a listening Government. Long may this wonderful spirit of collaboration continue.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)
The noble Baroness, Lady Browning, and the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, are not taking part in today’s proceedings, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Carrington of Fulham.
Lord Carrington of Fulham (Con) [V]
My Lords, I start by bringing to your Lordships’ attention my interests as in the register.
Some businesses have undoubtedly done very well in the past 18 months, but many have seen their markets disappear and have struggled to pay their bills, even after all the support quite rightly provided by the taxpayer. Some companies will bounce back quickly, allowing them to protect jobs and invest for the future. However, most will find the next few years very tough indeed. They will be forced to retrench to survive while building back their capital base and, in particular, their working capital. As in the old cliché, cash will be king, and preserving cash will be the only way to survive.
These companies will need all the help they can get. Otherwise, jobs and investment will go, then productivity will crash. It will not be just small businesses that struggle; it will be firms of all sizes, with some industries hit worse than others. Help will have to come from banks and capital markets—even from lawyers, accountants and, improbably, consultants. The Government also have a big role to play: as they have during the pandemic, so they will during the recovery. The Treasury will have to continue pretty much what it has been doing already, by reducing the tax take from such struggling businesses through both tax holidays and tax delays. Of course, getting the country’s borrowing down is also vital. Timing is everything: if we get businesses growing and productivity rising, public sector borrowing will come down as night follows day.
The key is to get business cash flow growing fast. This is the time to stabilise or reduce taxes, not raise them. Frankly, it is pretty strange to plan to raise corporation tax ahead of the recovery. In terms of company planning, a proposed tax increase is the same as a present tax take. I hope that the Government will review the proposal to raise corporation tax and postpone or cancel it if it looks as though it will be damaging to corporate recovery.
However, as the pandemic has caused challenges, it gifts opportunities as well. If we want to reduce tax on business—as I think we should—now is the time for some much-needed reforms of our tax system. Let us start with business rates, an outdated tax unrelated to profit or turnover and a fixed, unavoidable cost for profitable and unprofitable businesses alike. It should be replaced with a tax related to a company’s cash flow.
Then there is national insurance and income tax. Let us combine them. I fully understand the cosmetic reasons for not doing so, but the objection is just cosmetic. Both are taxes on wages so combining them will raise the same amount of tax but allow for simplification of the tax system. This will be hugely beneficial to both employees and employers. While we are at it, we should get rid of employers’ national insurance contributions. They are a pernicious tax on employment at a time when we need to give employers every encouragement to take on and retain more staff.
Finally, I want to say something about clever financing schemes. Factoring invoices or, as it now seems to be branded, supply-chain financing, has a long and successful history, but it was never without risk. Indeed, it is always riskier than bank lending, which is why it has always been more expensive, but it is a banking risk that needs to be regulated by the bank regulator. To then combine factoring with the statistical manipulations that led to the subprime crash of 2008 was always going to end in tears. I suggest that if Her Majesty’s Government want to make their buying processes more efficient, they do that by reforming their procurement and bill-paying procedures. If this still, bizarrely, need to be financed externally rather than through the Debt Management Office, it can safely be done only through the regulated banking system.
The next few years will be very challenging for businesses of all sizes. Raising taxes and continuing with an unreformed tax system will add to industry’s problems in exporting and providing employment and will delay our recovery from this pandemic.
Lord Lea of Crondall (Non-Afl)
My Lords, there are so many different pictures in the press and among the think tanks at the moment that it is anybody’s guess how the economy will evolve, but given that this debate focuses on jobs, employment et cetera, I was struck by the remarks by a number of speakers, including, I think, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, about the fact that we have not got our act together so far as employment policy is concerned.
This can be seen through the prism of the crisis in the universities, which is there. There is a crisis because we have a philosophical contradiction. If you were writing a philosophical book in the 19th century about the nature of the university—we all know that some famous books were written about that—it was not for job creation. It was not to meet the labour market. We are creeping about at the moment implying that universities are to do with jobs and the labour market, but the set-up in universities does not reflect that. I will get shot if I say that in more clear-cut terms because there is a huge establishment for the universities. People with good intentions, including new Labour et cetera, felt that there was a magic wand to be waved and that productivity was at the other end of investment in universities. Why would that be so? Where does the link come? There is no link at all. I agree that if you want to study the classics, ancient Greece et cetera, that is wonderful, but generally speaking that is not why we are putting untold billions into universities.
So how do we change the culture of this debate? It is connected with productivity, certainly. We had in the 1960s, of course, the idea of concerted action, à la Jacques Delors in the 1970s and so on, and I was a supporter of that. But at the moment we actually lack —I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, said this, or perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes—a new department of employment. That is my language, not theirs. It could be the department of the labour market, if you like. Because there is currently no such thing.
Even when we had a department of labour and employment, when big economic decisions had to be taken, the Treasury was obviously the most important department—and now we have, side by side with that, the whole of the banking system, which I would say has much more influence than people who are studying the labour market. So I ask the Minister to comment on the question: do not we now need a ministry for the labour market? I know that it is a bit pathetic when you have to call for a new ministry, but the evidence is piling up, so we must not be shy and run away from it just because calling for a different government department is thought to be the last refuge of the scoundrel.
This of course would have to have as one of its concepts buy-in by young people. I do not think we have that. There is not a very bright prospect for many people in the universities at the moment, but more generally that is at what you might call the elite end of the system. But let us look at the statistics at the other end of the system. There is insecure employment: how many people can survive that? An article today in the FT, which is being quoted by everybody, says that
“Britain’s Living Wage Foundation published the results of two surveys last week, based on 2,000 responses … which found that almost two-fifths of UK workers were given less than a week’s notice of their shifts or work patterns. Among full-time low-paid workers, 55 per cent were given less than a week’s notice and 15 per cent less than 24 hours.”
Well, is that not crazy? Is that going to generate a highly productive labour market, particularly with these young people not having relevant qualifications?
So I must say that, if there is one thing that we do not have enough focus on, it is that, unless we see sustaining employment as to do with high productivity, there is a rather misleadingly attractive model in which we just want more jobs. But more jobs per se? You do not need to be, as it were, labour-theory-of-value over the top, but we need to see where the productivity is. At the moment, I am afraid that our productivity position, as well as our trading position, in all the OECD tables, is at the bottom. So I am a bit surprised—well, being a Labour speaker I am not surprised because I am representing this side. However, I think that the Government are lulling themselves into a false sense of security.
I will make a final remark about the nature of improving productivity and how it relates to public policy. When we had the discussions with Ted Heath and so on at that time—not a lot of people will now say a good word about Ted Heath—in all the discussions there was a pretty targeted analysis of how all this related to productivity, prices and incomes and so on. We have now thrown out the baby with the bath-water by saying, “Well, that didn’t work, did it?” That is a sweeping generalisation. So we are running away from what many people here will remember: in the 1960s and 1970s—much-derided decades—we were actually pretty good in the international league tables. At the moment we are presupposing that we are well up there.
I will make a final remark about Brexit—which, of course, you need a special vaccination permit to speak on these days. Two or three years ago, I attended a meeting with the chief executives of six of the major companies responsible for foreign direct investment into Britain. We met over a meal. They said that, if we left the EU, FDI would collapse. I have to say, it has collapsed; the figure is more or less zero.
In other words, there are no new plants and factories. I do not want to characterise this as only manufacturing, but FDI has collapsed. It has—I will bet £10 that it has, and I will win that bet if the noble Lord thinks I am wrong. FDI has collapsed and this requires us to see a timescale in which we can reopen some conversations with the European Union about the internal market, which is the key to why it has collapsed.
I would like the Minister to make sure that, by the time she replies, she has the latest figures on foreign direct investment in Britain and how it compares with five and 10 years ago—and I will eat my hat if she tells me I have got it wrong.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall. I do not have the FDI figures in front of me and I do not have a hat either, but I am glad he raised the vital question of higher education. I would like to associate myself with all the remarks made by my noble friends Lord Horam, Lord Vaizey and Lady Noakes, and the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, about the impact of closing colleges and universities.
I should declare my interest as someone who teaches at the University of Buckingham, which makes me acutely aware of how unsatisfactory it is to try to teach through the medium of Teams. It seems that, by keeping young people from their studies, we are exacting an especially high toll on the people who are least at risk from the epidemic itself.
I wish I could share the optimism expressed by so many of my noble friends about the condition of our economy as we come out of the lockdown. However, I fear that when things reopen, they will not go back to normal. The malign psychological changes wrought by the epidemic and its associated closures will last long after the immediate threat of the virus has passed. The world into which we emerge after lockdown will be poorer, colder, more pinched and more authoritarian. As we haul ourselves from the pupa, the chrysalis, of these closures, we will be transformed and—the evidence suggests—not in a good way.
I am not really talking about the economics. I have nothing to add to what my noble friend Lady Noakes said. She quoted figures on our debt, our deficit level and the hit we have taken. The hit last year was worse than in any equivalent period during either of the two world wars or the great depression. But eventually, after many years or decades, we will be able to make good that damage. What alarms me more is a phenomenon well attested to by behavioural psychologists: the way a collective threat, or a perceived collective threat, throws people back on their palaeolithic heuristics. It makes us warier, more suspicious, more illiberal, more hierarchical and more demanding of the smack of firm government.
My noble friend Lord Vaizey drew a parallel with 1945 and the Beveridge report. In general I think that parallels with the Second World War should be used sparingly in politics, but on this occasion it seems a quite valid linkage to make, because that was the last time we felt the experience of a collective threat of similar magnitude.
The result was that, once the emergency had passed, the demand for collectivist measures, which had been brought about by the changes in our economy and psychology during the Blitz and the mobilisation, endured. So, long after their notional justification was no longer there, we still had identity cards until 1952, food rationing until 1954 and full male conscription until 1960. Indeed, when it comes to some of the economic controls put in place in the first half of the 1940s, in many cases they lasted until the Thatcher reforms of the 1980s. Indeed, some aspects of education and healthcare are still there—products, essentially, of wartime thinking and full mobilisation.
What alarms me is that a similar change in public psychology and, therefore, in electoral calculations will endure long after the passing of this disease, and that Governments will cling on to powers that were taken on a supposedly contingent basis and will be reluctant to return them when the emergency passes.
After 1945, there was a demand for big spending and big government. People were not in the mood to listen to the argument that we were bankrupt, our Treasury was empty, our credit was exhausted and we had spent all our resources in the course of defeating Hitler. People felt that they had earned something more. So we went about an extraordinary expansion of the remit of the state. I can see similar arguments creeping in now. When was the last time that we heard anyone, either in this House or another place, make the case that we should cut grants to businesses or charities, or the uplifts in public sector pay or in benefits—pick pretty much any of them? It becomes almost impossible and pointless to make that argument when the mood is as it is. So debates in both Chambers come to resemble a kind of prolonged episode of the “Today” programme: a series of demands for additional spending, each individually defensible but collectively unaffordable.
I was very pleased to hear my noble friend the Minister say that the Government intend to move back to a balanced budget when circumstances allow, but I am equally very alarmed by the widespread view that this will have to be through tax rises. When you try to balance the budget with tax rises, you find that you are reducing the revenue-generating bit of the economy to sustain a rise in the revenue-consuming bit. That is no way to get rid of a structural debt; the way to get rid of that is for the economy to grow. How do you get the economy to grow? There is no magic formula; we have seen it happen every time it has been applied. You get an economy to grow by applying the principles of secure property, an independent judiciary, competitive regulations, free trade, open markets, and lower, flatter and simpler taxes. I was very pleased to hear what my noble friend Lord Carrington said about the simplification as well as the lowering and, in some cases, the abolition of taxes, particular on employment. If our priority is to get the economy moving again, then, far from raising taxes on investment and employment, we should look to reduce or at least suspend those taxes so that we get companies hiring again.
Of course, these were difficult enough arguments to make in normal times, even before we had the changes to our outlook wrought by the prolonged lockdown and we were thrown back on these palaeolithic instincts of wanting to keep things close, and to become more protectionist and introverted. If we could not win these arguments two years ago, is there any chance coming out of this that the country will have an appetite for significant deregulation or tax cuts? As the poet says:
“forward, tho’ I canna see,
I guess an’ fear!”
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I will focus my remarks on the creative industries, particularly music, but with some detours along the way. I am grateful to UK Music and the Incorporated Society of Musicians for briefings.
In addressing jobs and livelihoods, I will also touch on the experience of the self-employed, in terms of both employment and unemployment. In this sense, the music industry is particularly relevant because, alongside others in the performing and visual arts, 88% of the workforce is self-employed, compared with 30% in the creative industries and 15% in the UK workforce as a whole at the end of 2019, according to ONS figures. This represents a trend towards greater self-employment in the economy during normal times. This trend has significantly stalled due to Covid.
The creative industries normally employ about 2 million people and are worth over £116 billion a year. As a whole, the sector is of course grateful for the support provided over the last year in the form of the JRS, the Self-employment Income Support Scheme, the Culture Recovery Fund and more, but more still needs to be done to support individuals who have fallen through the gaps in support and to provide schemes that will facilitate recovery.
The Government are now concentrating on a road map to recovery, yet, as UK Music points out, it will be necessary to continue support beyond the end of restrictions for individuals, organisations and industry as a whole to get our arts and creative industries back on track after such a devastating year. They will need to pay off debts, build up capital and get their businesses going again. Of course, that depends on the road map itself not significantly changing.
Music, like all the performing arts, has suffered particularly badly, yet it is hugely valuable to the economy and was worth £5.8 billion in 2019. Of course, it is part of the wider cultural landscape that, in normal times, encourages tourism to the UK and is a driver for the local economy. It will also be significant in restoring a sense of community. These are roles that it and so many of the other arts need to be playing again.
However, it is important to point out the damage: 70% of musicians got less than a quarter of their usual work in 2020, grass-roots music venues lost 75% of their income and technical supply companies lost 95% of theirs. The Government have listened to some of the requests from industry, but outstanding concerns include the need for a Government-backed insurance scheme for live events. Austria, Norway and the Netherlands have such schemes, and the UK has done this for film and TV.
Festivals are already starting to cancel since they cannot afford to take the risk. This potentially represents huge economic losses, not just for the businesses concerned but for the local community. Boomtown, in my area of Hampshire, is the latest to cancel. Will the Government also extend the VAT reduction on cultural tickets to the end of the year? This would considerably help the next festive season. Also, 100% rate relief should be extended to the end of 2021-22 for qualifying businesses in England, as is the case in Wales and Scotland.
Last month, the University of Leeds’s Centre for Cultural Value analysed data from the ONS’s Labour Force Survey, concluding that the current crisis for freelancers in the creative industries is hitting different demographic groups in markedly different ways. Women freelancers have been hit badly in certain areas, such as publishing and the film industry. Workers under the age of 30 have been more detrimentally affected than more established, older freelancers.
The self-employed do not have the traditional structures of protection afforded by established unions or even companies, and this possible loss of talent is hugely worrying. In this light, we need to rethink how the self-employed in the arts should be treated in crises such as this. The Minister will recall the reaction to blithe assumptions about retraining; this is not about the removal of dead wood. The loss to society of young people’s hard-won, and often innovative, skills would be substantial.
Therefore, I am glad that support for individual freelancers will be continued until at least September, but support is also needed for those estimated 3 million who have still received nothing for the last year for a variety of reasons, including being on PAYE or newly self-employed. Many of them work in the creative industries. Those problems have been laid out in detail in the excellent report by the Gaps in Support All-Party Group in late February. The Minister should take a look at it if she has not seen it because it contains recommendations that remain relevant this side of the spring Budget.
The problems ahead are wider in at least a couple of ways than the terms of the debate imply. First, it is not just Covid but, of course, Brexit which is having a negative economic effect. For many small businesses and the self-employed it will be less a recovery than a nightmare which has hardly begun. I will not make detailed points in this debate about Brexit, but it is worth saying that we cannot talk about economic recovery or otherwise unless we include Brexit in the equation.
Industries should also be trusted to know the difference between the effect of the pandemic and the effect of Brexit on their businesses. Many musicians, and others in the performing arts, depend on touring in Europe for their livelihoods. Tours are already being cancelled because of Brexit. In a new survey by the ISM, 94% of music businesses say that the Brexit trade deal has already had a negative effect on them, while 79% say that they are concerned about the future of their business in the next year or so, with particular regard to Brexit. These are not teething problems but the permanent result of the restrictions and red tape written into the TCA, unless the Government act to mitigate these effects most urgently through a separate, bespoke visa waiver agreement, which is strongly supported across the performing arts.
Secondly, the protection of jobs or indeed the creation of new ones is only part of the story of survival. As the Government themselves say, not all businesses can survive, but if this is the case we must do everything to help those who have lost work to prepare for a return to work. This is something we are signally fundamentally failing to do. As the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, pointed out in her debate on the inclusive society last week, a Heriot-Watt University-led study for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, has already referred to, reported in December last year that 2.4 million people experienced destitution in 2019, before the pandemic even began—a 54% increase since 2017, including more than half a million children.
It needs to be said that £20 a week for many people in well-paid jobs is neither here nor there, yet such is the inadequacy of universal credit to provide, alongside other deficiencies in the system such as the delay in payment, that you may be in a reasonably paid job one moment and visiting a food bank the next. As ExcludedUK has pointed out, the self-employed, among others, are now losing their homes as a result of losing work during the Covid pandemic.
We urgently require a new way of looking at support for the unemployed. I am in favour of a basic income but, at the very least, people need to be properly supported whether in work or not. For too long we have had a system where so-called discomfort as a policy is built in to encourage people off benefits. It does not work. This policy needs to be recognised for what it is. It is, quite simply, cruel, and the only effect it has is towards greater poverty, as we can see from the huge rise in the use of food banks experienced by nine out of 10 councils, according to the recent survey by the District Councils’ Network. In the case of vocational careers the result will be a sad and avoidable loss of talent, which should be an investment for this country. Support for the unemployed needs to be significantly increased, and that should be part of an overall plan for recovery.
Lord Shinkwin (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend the Minister is surely right to describe the pandemic as a grave shock, as is my noble friend Lady Wheatcroft to mention certain groups that have been particularly hard hit. To her list I would add disabled people: 60% of those who died were disabled. The disability employment gap, which currently stands at almost 30%, is growing. It is therefore more important than ever that the Prime Minister is allowed to deliver on his bold and admirable vision of a society in which everyone is enabled to realise their potential. It is why the whole of government needs to get behind his manifesto promise to produce the most ambitious and transformative disability plan in a generation.
I for one question neither his sincerity nor the scale of his ambition. Unlike so many other politicians, the Prime Minister cuts through; he connects with people’s hopes and he thinks big. Now is the time for him to do all three, and his forthcoming national strategy for disabled people is the perfect opportunity for him to do so. Indeed, the success of his levelling-up agenda depends on it. The strategy is its first big test.
Some may ask what disability has got to do with the economy and our recovery from the Covid-induced downturn. I would say: a lot. Just a 5% increase in the number of disabled people in employment is projected to result in a £23 billion increase in GDP, with tax revenue up £6 billion by 2030. The purple pound—the spending power of households with one or more disabled people in them—is estimated to be worth one-quarter of a trillion pounds. I think the PM gets this. To his credit, he has nailed his colours to the mast. Disabled people, in turn, have pinned their hopes to it, but the question hanging in the air is whether all his Cabinet and ministerial colleagues have really thought through just how radical the reset required is, and what it will take for the reality to match the rhetoric.
What is clear is that now is not the time for yet more tokenistic tinkering or tweaks to policy. Rather, now is the time for a radical reset of policy and policy-making that matches the ambition of the PM’s vision. At the heart of that reset must be this simple principle: just as it has been with gender, the lived experience of disability around the boardroom table on merit is central to resetting the conversation. Equally important is an acknowledgement that a different conversation is never going to take place while the same sort of people are leading it—namely, well-intentioned, well-meaning but non-disabled people, in the form of successive Governments—and are telling disabled people what is good for them.
If the Government are serious about wanting the PM’s national strategy for disabled people to land well with its primary stakeholder group—disabled people—they will stop insisting that they have embarked on one of the largest-ever engagement programmes with disabled people when so many disabled people, me included, have been horrified to see what that engagement amounts to. If an online survey that is so offensive and inept that it is currently the subject of a legal challenge by the law firm Bindmans is meant to be a success, then I hate to think what failure looks like.
To ensure the PM’s strategy lands well and to support him, the Government need to listen to the business leaders who recently signed an open letter to the Prime Minister, urging him to show in his strategy that he had given careful consideration to the recommendations of the CSJ Disability Commission, which I was delighted to chair. Signatories to the letter included GSK, Pearson plc, the Post Office Ltd, Schroders, BNY Mellon Investment Management, Coca-Cola, PageGroup, Clifford Chance, Ashurst, Herbert Smith Freehills LLP, COINS, Aviva plc, ITV, Unilever, Clyde & Co LLP, Purplebricks, Stephenson Harwood LLP, Gapsquare and LGBT Great. The list goes on. They all say:
“Disabled people have waited long enough; now is the time for action.”
They are right, which is why the CSJ Disability Commission placed its employment recommendations at the heart of its submission to the PM’s strategy. Those recommendations include: extending mandatory gender employment and pay gap reporting, which a Conservative Government introduced and which Ministers in this Government have said is working, to disability; providing more supported routes into employment; leveraging government procurement, worth some £292 billion, to drive up the number of disabled people in employment; and reforming Disability Confident, which currently does not command the confidence of either business or disabled people, and Access to Work to make those schemes fit for purpose.
The PM has stuck his neck out, which is why I close with this point. I hear that some Ministers continue to argue against mandatory workforce reporting on disability by large firms with 250 or more employees, citing that old chestnut of having a philosophical objection as Conservatives to using the stick, as well as the carrot, to bring about progress. Well, this Conservative has a philosophical objection to failure. Some 26 years have now passed since the Disability Discrimination Act was passed. If the carrot alone was ever going to work, it would have worked by now.
The fact is that the opponents of giving business a level playing field on which to compete transparently and consistently for the best talent, whether disabled or non-disabled—as the extension of mandatory gender pay gap reporting to other protected characteristics, such as disability, would do—are behind the curve. They are in dogmatic denial. They protest that pay gap reporting cannot be done. Meanwhile, some businesses, such as Clifford Chance and EY, are already doing it. To them, I simply say thank you. To the Government, I say, “Please fulfil your responsibility, as the party of business and equality of opportunity, to create the conditions most conducive to fair and open competition”. That means a level playing field and mandatory pay gap reporting. Now is the time to lend the economy, disabled people, businesses and, most of all, the PM our support in ensuring that he can deliver on his promise for the most ambitious and transformative disability plan in a generation.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend. I congratulate him on being such a champion for disabled people. We came into the House at the same time, and I yield to no one in my admiration for all he does in that quarter.
I am delighted to speak in this debate. I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on setting the scene and especially on highlighting the undoubted generosity of this Government. I will make two specific points in beginning. I said in the Budget debate, and repeat here, that I believe we are in danger of failing women, particularly younger women. They have lost out, particularly in the hospitality and retail sectors, although we do not yet know to what extent. We are also in danger of failing older woman, who find it so difficult to re-enter the market yet—I include myself in this—are being asked to work longer before they are entitled to take their state pension.
There is also one sector that I believe is worthy of perhaps more targeted support than we have given it at this time—the aviation sector. It is the sector to which my husband contributed more than 30 years of his working life, and one of which I have always been very supportive. As a Government we should recognise that its margins are particularly low. I hope we can recognise that it has probably suffered greater even than the hospitality and retail sectors. I believe we owe it to the sector to enable it to build back better once the economy starts to surge, as my noble friend Lord Hannan so enthusiastically says it will—and I do not disagree with him.
I shall focus my remarks on the levelling-up agenda, particularly from a northern and rural perspective. I am looking especially at the build back better possibilities that my noble friend set out. How will this work in a rural landscape, particularly looking to the food and farming sectors in the countryside and the role of market towns as hubs in this regard?
I welcome the commitment my noble friend highlighted: that we will send civil servants to Darlington, Leeds and other places. I hope they respond as enthusiastically to that call. To me, growing up near Darlington, it was a big day out, so I can commend the pleasures of Darlington to them without any hesitation. Obviously, the housing will be a lot cheaper than where they might currently live. I welcome that commitment, but specifically what policies we will introduce in rural areas, particularly in a northern context?
In preparing for today, I had an excellent briefing from North Yorkshire County Council. I pay tribute to the work it has done in setting up a rural commission and a climate change commission, leaning in—in the words of my noble friend Lord Vaizey—to the times and recognising where these twin challenges are coming from. We have challenges in rural areas such as North Yorkshire, particularly in transport and connectivity. I welcome all the support the Government are highlighting in this area, and I hope for even more support.
The rural bus network has taken a particular hit because obviously it is very difficult to entice passengers to travel to work on rural buses. The collapse in passengers during the pandemic, with more people working from home, has undoubtedly left a great dent. Broadband and mobile phones are woeful in rural areas, particularly the uplands of North Yorkshire, and that is something I take every opportunity—such as this—to highlight.
I live in despair about promoting electric vehicles in rural areas. I would like to travel the 240 or 250 miles to North Yorkshire and to think that there would be sufficient charging points to enable me to purchase an electric vehicle, if I could ever afford one, and run it locally before I travel back to London.
These are the everyday challenges we face in rural areas. It is important that, while North Yorkshire has benefited in some regards, being a desirable place to live and work—I think more people will purchase homes there—some negative sectors have emerged. We have been particularly hard hit in that food supplies to the catering sector during the lockdown absolutely collapsed. Also, large numbers of people have been furloughed and there is ongoing uncertainty about whether they will go back to jobs. Structural challenges in this regard remain.
I now turn to what we are planning to do, in particular BioYorkshire. I had an excellent briefing from the vice-chancellor of the University of York in this regard. BioYorkshire is a very exciting concept. It is a global bioeconomy programme to be delivered by the global leaders in the sector. It is a 10-year programme that will accelerate the translation and application of research discoveries into full-scale biotechnology applications using the region of Yorkshire’s world-class science base to deliver profitable bio-based production of chemicals, materials and fuels, building on the strengths we have in this regard of food, farming and the already well-developed food clusters we enjoy in North Yorkshire. I pay tribute to BioYorkshire and hope that it will enjoy the match funding required. It will need £430 million of government support to lever £570 million of co-funding. It is a partnership between the University of York and Fera Science, which I worked closely with for five years when it was based in my constituency and gave frequent evidence to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee, which I had the privilege to chair. Askham Bryan agricultural college will play a key role, as will private sector partners such as Ocado and Nestlé, which many noble Lords will be familiar with.
However, I want to ask a specific question on match funding, building on contributions from other noble Lords. The Government made an early and welcome commitment on leaving the European Union to make good the shortfall in university funding for the future. This is where I want to pin my noble friend down: is this for the foreseeable future—the next five or 10 years —or is it just until the end of a current EU programme such as Horizon, which expires, and the money runs out, next year? This is extremely important to projects such as BioYorkshire because, for it to succeed, the University of York and the match funding will require this money to be made good by the Government. My specific question is therefore: is it a long-term commitment from the Government that they will make good, on an ongoing, year-on-year basis for the foreseeable future, the shortfall that we have suffered since leaving the European Union, or is it only until the end of the current funding programme, such as Horizon and other programmes, in 2022? I repeat: to ensure the success of programmes such as BioYorkshire—which I am sure is replicated across the country—we need this match funding from the Government to make good the shortfall now that we have left the European Union.
On “levelling up” and “building back better”, which are phrases that are very easy to throw around but difficult to make good on, how will this work in a northern and rural setting such as North Yorkshire and the whole of the Yorkshire region? What specific policies and funds do my noble friend and the Government plan to make available to ensure their success?
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con) [V]
My Lords, the Covid pandemic has had a devastating impact on many aspects of our lives, and government schemes such as furlough, on the basis of which 5 million people are still employed, have helped so many during the past year.
I want to open by talking about how the pandemic has disproportionately affected women and what we can do as we emerge from lockdown and furlough to help them. Over the past year, statistics have shown that more women than men have been placed on furlough. They tend to work in industries with some of the highest job losses, such as retail, food services and accommodation. As furlough comes to an end, it is particularly worrying for them as to whether they will even have a job to return to, or whether there will be many new opportunities. These figures are even worse for women from a black, Asian or ethnic minority.
My daughter has mentioned that in her local row of 12 shops in London only the eateries have kept going, with the other nine closing down permanently. We need to provide business rates relief to shops such as those so that they can re-establish themselves and rebuild as part of the local community to provide local shopping and job opportunities.
Many women have borne the brunt of the impact of Covid, supporting their families, whether old or young, home-schooling and being the fabric that holds the family together financially and socially. For some women, working from home has enabled them to balance family commitments and manage work while allowing their partner to take more of a hands-on role. It is important that the right to work from home, or flexibly, is retained in legislation to help women to continue to work, and for men too. The Government’s employment Bill, as promised in the Queen’s Speech, cannot come soon enough.
It is important that we also focus training, money and effort to help increase the employment and employability of women, not just on building infrastructure, which tends to employ men, but for other industries. I know that the House of Commons Women and Equalities Committee called on the Government to fund training schemes specifically aimed at women using Kickstart and Restart and to increase the number of women in science, technology, engineering and maths careers and apprenticeships so that women will not lose out in the recovery. These steps are key to ensure that women are part of the future.
However, job losses are more likely for some as furlough comes to an end. I ask the Government to look at how those made redundant or who are already unemployed can be helped to avoid racking up debt by avoiding any hiatus between their final salary or furlough payment and moving on to benefits. Too often, we have seen people fall into debt due to the gap between them applying for and receiving universal credit. It is a debt that often starts small yet soon balloons to being out of control. Recovering is helping everyone as best we can.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the last 13 months have been hugely challenging for everyone across our country. Using the 28-day measure, Covid-19 has, sadly, claimed the lives of more than 127,000 fellow Britons. The Office for National Statistics puts the death toll in excess of 150,000, while millions more have tested positive for the illness or have loved ones who have.
After a brutal second wave of the virus that stretched our NHS to its limits, the country and our economy are now gradually reopening. With the days growing longer and warmer, and with an increasing number of vaccines having been administered, it is heartening to see signs of a return to normality. However, we are on a long road and we must not repeat the mistakes of the past.
Despite the experiences of last autumn and the emergence of multiple new strains of the virus, there remain some who continue to call for restrictions to be eased more quickly. We support the current road map out of Covid-19 restrictions and hope that the Prime Minister will remain steadfast in his new-found commitment to being guided by the scientific data.
The number of cases, hospital in-patients and deaths are thankfully now down, but all three counts remain higher than we would like. Indeed, while we have not seen any sustained spikes since we began to exit lockdown, it is also true that we are experiencing some days where cases are higher than the corresponding day during the previous week. This adds to the case for remaining vigilant and taking time to assess the situation before moving on to the next step in the road map.
While the pandemic has been tough for everyone, there is little doubt that businesses and working people have found the last 13 months especially hard. We have previously acknowledged the unprecedented levels of economic support provided by the Government and I do so again today: the Treasury has put forward a significant sum of money.
However, despite the headline figures of 11.4 million jobs furloughed and 2.2 million applications to the Self- employment Income Support Scheme, the Government’s support package has ultimately fallen short of repeated promises from the Prime Minister and the Chancellor to do whatever it takes to get people through these tough times. For example, although we have finally seen some changes to the Self-employed Income Support Scheme’s eligibility criteria, it remains a major concern that the Chancellor was willing to exclude so many from receiving proper financial help, and for a full year.
Due to the nature of the scheme, money has gone to people with other sources of income while many individuals with nothing to fall back on have been forced to rely on universal credit. The Treasury cannot claim ignorance: we raised the issue on multiple occasions, as did a variety of trade bodies and campaign groups. Ultimately, the Chancellor refused to act.
The operation of the furlough scheme has been somewhat haphazard. Last summer, to the frustration of struggling firms, the scheme was completely redesigned. That decision was eventually reversed mere days before the changes were due to come into force. Subsequent announcements extending job support have come very late in the day and timescales have occasionally appeared divorced from reality.
Some may say that there was no harm done. However, the mismanagement of the furlough scheme has had a real impact. In addition to the jobs placed on hold, hundreds of thousands have been lost entirely. Numerous businesses that wanted to keep staff on ultimately made the call to lay them off. For some, decisions were driven by short-term concerns about patchy and unpredictable government support, while for others there are major concerns about what the economy will look like after the pandemic. The Minister will point to the provision which allowed businesses to rehire and re-furlough some of those who had been let go. Some have been given their jobs back, albeit after the stress of being let go. However, many have not.
A high proportion of the people who lost their jobs are in the 18 to 24 or over-65 age groups, creating specific challenges when it comes to their re-engaging with the labour market. This is an area where the Labour Party, trade unions and business groups have pushed the Government for action. We want to see a proper plan for reskilling the workforce, with a particular focus on helping young people. Initiatives announced thus far are far too limited in scope, ambition and resource.
Although some businesses have continued trading, even if at a reduced capacity, others have been unable to operate at all. In some cases, Treasury grants have not been sufficient to cover all the costs of keeping businesses going. This has been a particular challenge for hospitality, where firms often have significant fixed costs even after rent payments have been deferred and other bills covered by government support.
Help available to firms operating in the supply chain or other industries has been even less comprehensive. While it may not have been possible to implement special arrangements for every sector, there are examples where the Treasury seemingly ignored clear cases for tailored support.
The result is that many businesses in aviation and aerospace, steel, hospitality, travel and tourism, or the cultural and retail sectors, have had to take on significant additional debt. This is likely to act as a millstone around their neck, weighing down not only the recovery of individual firms but our country as a whole. We can already see this reflected in the disappointing economic forecasts attached to the Budget. Our recovery is likely to be modest, limited by the costs of recent inaction—including lower growth, lost tax revenue and higher than necessary unemployment.
None of this is simple, and the Minister knows that we try to approach these matters in a spirit of co-operation. However, that is a two-way street, requiring a willingness from the Government to listen and take ideas on board. Sadly, what we have seen in recent months suggests a lack of learning from past mistakes. The paltry 1% pay offer for NHS nurses is an insult to their heroism over the past 13 months. Severe cuts to departmental budgets for future years will stifle rather than nurture public services.
We all have an interest in building back better after this pandemic and securing a stronger, fairer economy where jobs and livelihoods are not only protected but enhanced. This will require creativity, particularly around the restructuring of business debts and the reskilling of the workforce. Let us meet this challenge with new ideas rather than resorting to yet more half-measures and failed austerity.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their thoughtful and insightful contributions to this debate. My noble friend Lady Noakes will be relieved to hear that, instead of repeating my Treasury brief, I shall use my time in closing this debate to address the many points raised by noble Lords.
A number of noble Lords, including my noble friends Lord Lilley and Lady Noakes, noted the unique nature of this economic crisis and the recovery—namely, that much of the economic shock was a consequence of government decisions taken to close aspects of our economy in response to the pandemic. While I suspect that there will not be a meeting of minds on the need for some of those lockdown measures, I hope that perhaps there will be more so on the need for the most recent lockdown to be our last and for the pathway out of the pandemic that we have set out to be a lasting and sustained one.
The noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, asked about data rather than dates. He is right that we will be driven by the data. He asked whether that would allow us to go faster than the road map that we have set out. The challenge there is that the gap between each stage of the road map allows us to gather the data on the outcomes of each set of changes before taking the next step. So while we will be driven by the data, we also need the time for each set of changes to take place and to gather the data on them, so we will not be moving faster than the road map set out. We hope to continue to make good progress along that road map.
In the unique economic crisis that we face, the fact that it has been caused by government decisions has been reflected in the scale of support provided by the Government to those most affected. The fact that so many businesses had to shut their doors as a result of government action meant that there was an unprecedented case for government intervention to support them. Noble Lords are also right that, as we progress on the road map out of lockdown, that direct support provided to businesses and jobs can be tapered away. The focus must then be on the long-term drivers of growth in our economy and what comes next.
The first item on that list from my noble friends was for the Government to get further out of the way and to reduce the regulatory burden on business, in particular, on small and medium enterprises. My noble friend Lord Lilley raised some very interesting points on the speed of approvals for vaccines and ventilators and the broad impact of regulatory delay. The Government will certainly consider where and in what ways the pandemic led to improvements that can now be implemented on a more permanent basis. The Government will also continue their work to identify and act on opportunities for deregulation, including those as a consequence of Brexit, making sure that we have a regulatory system that works for the UK.
The noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, spoke about business rates. While they are devolved in Wales, the Government have committed to fundamental review of the business rates system in England. The Treasury has published its interim report setting out a summary of responses to the call for evidence. Further policy development is currently taking place and the review will conclude in the autumn.
The noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, also raised points about economic support for Wales and what needs to happen in Wales to support the economic recovery. Of course, the Budget was, and is, for the whole United Kingdom, and one strength of our response to the pandemic has been the continued UK-wide support that the Government have provided in the current circumstances. That continues with the extension of the Covid support schemes, including the reduction in VAT for the tourism and hospitality sectors and the £20 increase in universal credit. The steps that the Budget took towards investment-led recovery—such as the extended annual investment allowance, new schemes to raise SME productivity and the UK Infrastructure Bank—would also benefit Wales’s economic recovery, as would the UK-wide place-based schemes empowering communities to drive local priorities.
As I mentioned in my opening remarks, the Budget also made some targeted interventions to support the strengths and opportunities in Wales. Those include, for instance, the £4.8 million Holyhead hydrogen hub, the up to £30 million invested in the global centre of rail excellence, and three city and growth deals in Wales.
A number of noble Lords—including my noble friends Lady Noakes and Lord Hannan and the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria—raised the issue of education, and in particular the quality of higher education and the impact of lockdown on it. The Government expect universities to maintain the quality and quantity of tuition. We seek to ensure that all students, regardless of their background, have the resources to study remotely. The Office for Students has made it clear that all higher education providers must continue to comply with registration conditions relating to quality and standards. That means ensuring that courses provide a high-quality academic experience; that students are supported and achieve good outcomes; and that standards are protected regardless of whether a provider is delivering its courses in person, through remote online learning or through a combination of the two. The Office for Students has published guidance on this for universities and will keep this under review that ensure that it remains relevant to the developing circumstances of the pandemic.
The OfS is also monitoring the overall position at sector level, for example through the polling of students’ views, and, where appropriate, and in response to issues raised through this monitoring, it will issue further advice to the sector.
A number of noble Lords, including my noble friends Lord Lancaster and Lord Horam, raised the issue of further education, vocational training and retraining for people to skill themselves for the new jobs of the future. The Government have done quite a bit in this area in recent years to encourage more flexible learning, including greater support for part-time learners through maintenance support and removing restrictions that had prevented students being loan-funded for part-time STEM undergraduate degrees if they had qualifications at the wrong level. The Government have also provided greater incentives for providers of accelerated degrees and introduced degree apprenticeships.
However, we want to do much more, and we want to take more radical steps in this area. That is why the Prime Minister has announced plans to introduce a lifelong loan entitlement as part of the lifetime skills guarantee. This will give people the opportunity to train, retrain and upskill throughout their lives to respond to the changing skills needs and employment patterns that the economy will present.
My noble friend Lord Lancaster asked specifically about the list of level 3 qualifications that the Government will support. The Government will keep that list under review to ensure that it continues to reflect the needs of employers.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, and my noble friend Lord Vaizey asked about the future fund and its operation. The future fund has been incredibly successful. It has provided between £125,000 and £5 million of government funding through convertible loans to high-growth companies, with third-party investors needing to match fund at least the government contribution on each loan. To update noble Lords, as of 25 March, 1,236 companies have applied for the future fund and £1.2 billion-worth of funding has been issued.
My noble friend Lord Lancaster asked about the cost of a potential default on the business support loans provided during the pandemic. The default estimates for the Covid loan schemes are preliminary and speculative given the current level of economic uncertainty. The estimated credit losses do not take account of our pay as you grow options for bounce-back loans, which give businesses more time to repay and can help to reduce defaults.
On duty free, which was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, and my noble friend Lord Vaizey, outbound duty-free sales have been extended to EU-bound passengers for the first time in 20 years. This is a significant boost to all airports and rail terminals in England, Scotland and Wales, and smaller regional airports and rail hubs. However, duty free on arrival could undermine the UK high street and run counter to public health objectives, so the decision has been taken not to apply that currently.
My noble friends Lady Hooper and Lady Noakes made important points around both UK trade and foreign direct investment. The setting up of the Department for International Trade and the considerable success that it has had since its establishment show the importance of FDI and exporting to our economy, as well as the increased focus and emphasis that the UK will continue to place on them as part of our future economic success. However, I do not propose to settle the bet that seems to have formed between two noble Lords in the debate on the current FDI statistics; I will leave them to settle that themselves.
The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and my noble friend Lord Vaizey raised the creative industries. They will be familiar with the considerable support that the Government have put in place for the creative industries. We know that it has been a particularly challenging time for those who work in these industries. That is why, as I said in my opening remarks, one of the changes that we made to the Self-employment Income Support Scheme was to extend the eligibility to those who completed a tax return for the 2019-20 year, which could make an extra 600,000 people eligible for it. In the Budget, the Government also extended the support that they are providing to the events sector, with £600 million to support local and national arts, culture and sports institutions as they reopen.
On plans for reopening and mass events, the Government have committed in their road map to explore when and how larger crowd sizes can be accommodated. The events research programme, which is under way now, is conducting a number of pilot events to build evidence on the risks associated with transmission routes, the characteristics of events and surrounding activities, and the extent to which mitigation measures can effectively address these. The first of these was held at the Crucible over the weekend. Sadly, I was not there and only watching on the television. Evidence from these pilot events will be used to inform the Government’s decision on returning full audiences to venues and increasing event capacity in time for step 4 of the road map in June.
The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, asked me a number of other specific questions on the creative industries sector. I would be happy to write to him on those.
Related to this, the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, asked about the role of vaccine passports or certification, or Covid certification, in the Government’s plans to reopen. On 5 April, we updated publicly on the progress that we have made on four reviews that we established during the road map. One of them is looking at Covid status certification. We believe that Covid status certification could have an important role to play, both domestically and internationally, as a temporary measure. Certification could potentially play a role in settings such as mass events, festivals or sporting events—or where large numbers of people are brought together in close proximity. Equally, the Government believe that there are some settings, such as essential public services, public transport and essential shops, where Covid status certification should never be required, in order to ensure access for all. The NHS is working on providing individuals with the means to demonstrate their Covid status through digital and non-digital routes.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, and my noble friends Lady McIntosh of Pickering and Lady Gardner of Parkes, raised the question of the pandemic’s impact on women. The Government recognise that this pandemic has had very different impacts on different sectors of society, and we have tried to tailor and frame our response taking that into account. Of course, we have done a huge amount in this area, and we will continue to do more, including putting in place more support for childcare and to help those who have been furloughed but who eventually lose their jobs back into the jobs market through personal coaching, work coaches and the opportunity to retrain and reskill.
My noble friend Lord Griffiths raised the important issue of youth unemployment, proposing a single Minister to tackle the issue. While I cannot comment on that, I reassure him of the Government’s commitment to taking youth unemployment seriously. I think that we have seen in the latest figures that young people have been disproportionately hit in so many ways by this pandemic, including in the jobs market. This is why we have put in place very specific support, including through the Kickstart scheme, to address youth unemployment—we have put that support in early, and it continues. I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, on the scale of some of the programmes that we have put in place and whether they are designed to meet the task ahead of us. They are quite unprecedented in what we are seeking to do. The Government have been clear that early and large-scale action on this issue is our priority, to prevent the kind of scarring effects that you can see for young people.
My noble friend Lord Griffiths also prompted an interesting discussion about monetary policy and quantitative easing. He may not be surprised to hear me say that monetary policy is a matter for the Bank of England, but, of course, where instruments involve unconventional interventions in specific markets or activities, the MPC is also required to work with the Government to ensure appropriate governance and accountability. I reassure my noble friend on his point about inflation. The remit of the Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee is still that target for inflation, which we have to keep in mind as we look at the measures that we have in place to support our economic recovery.
I am afraid I am probably also going to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Lea, not only in not settling his bet but on the prospect of a ministry for the labour market. The Department for Work and Pensions is doing a sterling job in the support it has ramped up during the pandemic, in having universal credit operate really effectively to support those who have seen their income change, in doubling work coaches, in the scaling up of support, in the real focus on getting people back into work and in giving them the support they need. We are well placed with our machinery of government in terms of the support we are giving.
My noble friend Lord Shinkwin raised the incredibly important issue of support for disabled people, who have been disproportionately hit by the pandemic. I will write to him on some of the specific points he raised on the Government’s strategy on this issue. I will also write to my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering on the specific action we are taking to support rural communities. For example, we are investing in broadband with a specific focus on improving connectivity for those communities, but I am sure there is a lot more to say in response to her question, so I will write to her on that issue and on her question on Horizon funding.
Finally, on the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, the Government will continue to work with all those they can to support our economic recovery. The scale and record of the Government’s actions speak of a Government who are prepared to put in investment and support to support people and their livelihoods during the unprecedented time we have had with the pandemic. I disagree with him about a lack of comprehensive support. We have put in wide-ranging measures, such as the job retention scheme and the self-employed scheme. The self-employed scheme is almost unreplicated around the world. It is a very difficult thing to do and has involved some difficult decisions to determine the eligibility criteria. It was important to do it because of the effect of government decisions on people’s livelihoods.
I also disagree with the noble Lord a bit about not learning some of the lessons as we have gone through this. For example, I talked about expanding eligibility for the self-employed scheme where we have been able to do so while balancing the need to reassure ourselves on the use of taxpayers’ money. That does not mean that we will stop the process of learning and reviewing the policies we are undertaking and our future plans. That is the spirit in which we want to approach the emergence from the pandemic, the future economic recovery and the economic growth that we now plan to see.
I am sure there is a number of other points that I have not managed to address in my response to noble Lords in this wide-ranging debate. I will write to noble Lords on them.
I close by thanking noble Lords for participating in this debate. We are in unprecedented economic times and it is important to take the opportunity to discuss our response, the immediate support, our vision for the economy of the future and how the Government can support it and enable and empower others to chart that future for themselves.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)
My Lords, that completes the business of the Grand Committee this afternoon. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.
House of Lords
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now begin. Some Members are here in the Chamber and others are participating remotely but all Members will be treated equally. I ask all Members to respect social distancing. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I shall immediately adjourn the House.
Oral Questions will now commence. Can those asking supplementary questions keep them to no longer than 30 seconds and confined to two points? I ask that Ministers’ answers are also brief.
Gambling: Early Mortality
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the research by Dr Naomi Muggleton linking gambling and early mortality, published in Nature Human Behaviour on 4 February, what plans they have to transfer responsibility for gambling policy to the Department of Health and Social Care.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, responsibility for gambling is shared across departments. DCMS leads on industry regulation, which is key to harm prevention. DHSC leads on gambling as a health issue and on treatment, and we work closely together. We are pleased to see more research being done and we are considering the findings carefully. Dr Muggleton’s research shows a correlation between higher gambling spend and lower well-being but does not look at causes.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
I thank the Minister for her response. As the recent research suggests, gambling-related harm and problem gambling produce a negative result across a whole variety of indicators, including health. Despite this, the Government continue to hold on to the idea that the industry is a net contributor to the Treasury, without taking into account the huge other costs being incurred. Will the Government consider undertaking a comprehensive study of the direct and associated costs, such as health, incarcerations, homelessness and social welfare, all caused by gambling harm, which materially affect the Treasury’s receipts?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The right reverend Prelate raises important points. He will be aware that Public Health England is doing research at the moment, looking at how to reduce gambling harms and how to recoup the costs to society, which I hope will go some way to reassuring him.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the excellent Select Committee report may not have endorsed the current split in policy leadership but it made it very clear that DCMS had a lot to do. In that context, can the Minister confirm that the online harms Bill will deal with underage gambling and issues raised by the question put by the right reverend Prelate, such as an association between gambling and early mortality—and if not, why not?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The main focus for addressing the issues that the noble Lord rightly raises is through our review of the Gambling Act. The online safety Bill, as he is aware, will focus on user-generated content in particular.
Lord Smith of Hindhead (Con)
My Lords, with reference to my interests as set out in the register, and bearing in mind the good advice that prevention is always better than cure, would my noble friend tell the House how many schools have included teaching students about the risks of potential gambling harm in PSHE classes or, indeed, whether schools are being actively encouraged to incorporate that important subject?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The Department for Education does not record how schools teach their pupils about gambling, but young people will be taught about gambling risks as part of the statutory health education curriculum, including the accumulation of debt. Training modules have been developed for teachers, including a specific section on gambling.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD) [V]
My Lords, only 3% of problem gamblers currently receive treatment. The planned new gambling clinics will help, but far more is needed. Given that one gambling company owner earned nearly £0.5 billion last year, much of it from problem gamblers, should not all gambling companies pay more to fund treatment through a compulsory levy?
Baroness Barran (Con)
As I mentioned in response to an earlier question, that is one of the issues that will be considered as part of the review of the Gambling Act. I can update the House that there has been an increased donation this year to GambleAware from the industry of £19 million, up from £10 million last year, and next year’s donation is forecast to be £26 million.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
Does my noble friend agree that Dr Muggleton stressed that the report could not say whether the association between gambling and any negative effect, including increased mortality, was causal? As a result, does she agree that in government DCMS should continue to focus on the most vulnerable through advertising and the location of betting shops in impoverished neighbourhoods rather than make policies drawn on direct causal links which the research does not conclude?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I can agree with my noble friend’s first statement. I would just expand on his suggestion about the role of DCMS. The department is very clear that we have an important role in protecting vulnerable people who may be harmed by gambling in particular, and we work across government to achieve that.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
My Lords, I cannot support the change in departmental responsibility suggested in the right reverend Prelate’s Question, but this is clearly a matter that raises the responsibilities of a wide range of government departments. What are the Government’s arrangements for enhancing departmental co-operation in addressing this crucial issue? Will they, for example, establish a bespoke departmental committee to co-ordinate action?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am not aware of specific plans such as those the noble Lord suggests, but I can reassure the House that co-operation between departments on this important matter is strong and effective.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab) [V]
Does the Minister agree with the comment of the Lancet Public Health last January, that:
“Gambling disorders often remain undiagnosed and untreated”,
and its call for a scientific inquiry into this
“urgent, neglected, understudied, and worsening public health predicament”?
If not, how would she describe it? Are the Government, as part of their review of gambling, considering the practicalities of a statutory duty of care for gambling companies, similar to the one we expect to be in the online safety Bill?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Lord raises an interesting point. It is significant, in relation to disorders such as gambling problems remaining hidden, that the Gambling Commission has recently appointed a panel of individuals with lived experience to advise it formally on player safety. We hope this means that currently hidden issues will become more visible, and we will be able to address them.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, despite the Government’s cross-departmental insistence that treatment for gambling problems will be prioritised, the scope of the call for evidence in the review of the Gambling Act 2005 made no mention of a public health approach. Such an approach would allow the treatment of gambling problems to be delivered in the same way as drug and alcohol addictions are treated. The Minister is aware of this. What action does she intend to take to rectify it?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I recognise the noble Baroness’s point about the specific language around public health, but if we look at what constitutes a public health approach, we see that it is inherent in the work being carried out. In particular, the Gambling Commission, as part of its role, looks broadly at the products, the players and the environment in which they operate.
Lord Mann (Non-Afl)
The vast majority of people who follow horseracing and football have no gambling problems whatever. Addiction manifests itself in many different ways. Does the Minister agree that it is the role of the Department of Health and Social Care to get into the precise causation that creates addictive behaviour, in whatever form it manifests itself?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Lord is right. That is why the Department of Health and Social Care is leading on the addiction strategy and the addiction treatment strategy for the Government, and why the review of the Act seeks to strike the right balance between consumer freedom and preventing harm.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con) [V]
My Lords, nobody doubts my noble friend’s commitment, but in view of the need to protect, in particular, vulnerable children from gambling addiction, can she say when the Government last convened a meeting with the Department for Education, the Department of Health and Social Care and the Treasury to consider these issues, which are clearly of great importance?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am not aware of the exact date to give to my noble friend, but I can reassure him that the issue that raised the most contributions in response to our call for evidence was the protection of children and young people.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed. We now come to the second Oral Question.
National Marriage Week
Baroness Eaton
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to recognise National Marriage Week; and what account they take of the role of marriage in the development of policy.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, there are no plans to recognise National Marriage Week. We recognise the role that marriage can play as the basis for family life. The public sector equality duty requires us to pay due respect to the impact of policy and decisions on different people, including those who are married or in civil partnerships. The family test helps ensure that policy decisions take into consideration impacts on family relationships and functioning, including for people who are married.
Baroness Eaton (Con) [V]
I thank my noble friend for her Answer. Is she aware that it is 10 years this year since a Minister last recognised National Marriage Week? There are many Members who regret this and would welcome some recognition of the stability found in marriage and the benefit that stability brings to children. Government as a whole is clearly not reluctant to recognise and celebrate many sorts of days, weeks and months, but, as I say, it is 10 years since some positive recognition of marriage came from a Minister. Will my noble friend undertake to speak to the Secretary of State for Education, who now holds responsibility for family across government, and ask him to provide Members of both Houses with details of how he intends to promote marriage within his new role?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, we recognise the role that marriage can play as the basis of family life for those couples who want their relationship to be recognised through this lasting commitment. But families come in all shapes and sizes, and we want to ensure that any type of family can provide a nurturing environment for children so that they can succeed and lead happy, fulfilling lives. The Secretary of State for Education, in his role to improve outcomes for families, would, I am sure, be happy to discuss these issues further with my noble friend.
The Lord Bishop of London
My Lords, I certainly commend National Marriage Week to this House, especially as one of the themes this year is that a wedding does not have to be an expensive extravaganza. The fees for a church wedding or a simple registry office ceremony are very modest indeed, but the wedding industry is busily ramping up expectations of what a special day should involve. How will Her Majesty’s Government work to encourage couples to understand that marriage itself matters far more than the commercial trappings of a wedding day?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I have to agree with the right reverend Prelate on the ever-increasing cost of weddings. I am not sure that the Government can get involved, but what has been happening with smaller weddings because of Covid-19 has perhaps made people think they do not need the huge weddings they have had in the past.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con) [V]
My Lords, as marriage is so important in helping to ensure stability and security for families, especially for children, will the Government ensure that the best tax arrangements are in place to promote marriage, rather than discourage it?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
As my noble friend is, I am sure, aware, the tax system encourages marriage and civil partnerships through the married persons tax allowance. The Government will continue to look at that.
Lord Etherton (CB)
My Lords, in the clunky language of the Office for National Statistics, there were estimated to be 71,000
“same-sex married couple families”
in 2020. There was a roughly similar figure for “civil partner couple families” in the same year. Is the Minister able to confirm that any support given by the Government for marriage, whether in recognition of National Marriage Week or in the development of policy, will always include support for same-sex marriages and civil partnerships?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I can assure the noble and learned Lord that that is the case. In the tax system and throughout all the support systems the Government are providing for families, we are looking at both marriages and civil partnerships.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab) [V]
My Lords, what assessment have the Government made of the impact of the two-child limit on divorced or widowed parents who wish to get married?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I think that having an exception for a new family, where two families get together, would be perceived as unfair to those families with three or more children who stay together and receive support from CTC or UC for two children, when more recently formed families would potentially receive support for more than two children. Therefore, I do not think the Government will consider this.
Baroness Janke (LD) [V]
My Lords, statistics show that 60% of the marriages of couples aged between 20 and 25 years end in early divorce. Are the Government satisfied about the effectiveness of the PSHE curriculum? Will the Minister ask her noble friend, with his new responsibilities, to look into whether it adequately provides young people with proper and relevant information about marriage, enabling them to make well-informed decisions for the future?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, in both primary and secondary schools, we are increasing the amount of relationship education we provide. At the end of primary, we expect that pupils are taught that marriage represents a formal and legally recognised commitment of two people to each other that is intended to be lifelong. At secondary schools, we build on the teaching about that important relationship and the opportunity that marriage provides.
Baroness Stroud (Con) [V]
My Lords, family breakdown is not simply an inevitable consequence of modern society. On average, in OECD countries, around 84% of children under 15 still live with both parents. In Finland, 95% of children under 15 still live with both parents, whereas in the UK, as few as two-thirds do. Given that the evidence is clear that family breakdown sits in the backdrop to so many broken lives, entrenching individuals in intergenerational cycles of poverty and instability, what steps are the Government taking to support marriage and, specifically, the couple relationship at the heart of the family, rather than just childcare policies and support for family breakdown—the approach to family policy that is so often taken?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My noble friend is absolutely right. However, the Government are committed to reducing conflict between parents, whether they are together or separated, to help them manage their differences; conflict can be damaging to children and impair parenting skills. Sometimes, separation can be the best option for a couple, but even then, continued co-operation and communication between parents promotes better outcomes for children. DWP’s Reducing Parental Conflict programme is encouraging councils across the country to integrate services and approaches that address parental conflict into their local provision for families.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
We do not have the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Farmer.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, marriage is a protected characteristic in our equalities legislation and results in more stable families, as we have heard already. What plans do the Government have to increase the value of the married couples tax allowance in recognition of these facts or otherwise address the UK tax burden on single-earner couple families with children, which is 25% greater than the OECD average?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My noble friend always brings up a difficult issue. The recipients of the marriage allowance have benefited from large increases in personal allowance; that is linked to the marriage allowance, which has almost doubled in the last decade. The Government remain committed to recognising marriage and the commitment it entails in the tax system while supporting low-earning families. The Government keep all aspects of the tax system under review, including the marriage allowance, and any decisions on future changes will be taken by the Chancellor as part of the annual Budget process.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB) [V]
My Lords, the Minister is, of course, correct in recognising that everyone has a choice in their relationships, but does she agree that the evidence is indisputable that children benefit from growing up within a stable marriage? Of course, there are wonderful exceptions, but socially and academically, marriage is of huge benefit to children. Can she confirm that the Government agree with this and outline what they intend to do to support it?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
The Government’s view is that a strong, stable and happy family life is important for children and young people. That can come in many guises. It could be marriage—which could be a same-sex relationship—or one of the numerous other relationships we have in our modern society.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed.
Gender-balanced Parliament and Male Primogeniture
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lucas
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Prime Minister’s statement on 20 November 2020 supporting a 50:50 gender-balanced Parliament, what plans they have to amend male primogeniture.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, as the Prime Minister has made clear, we want to see more women in Parliament. That is a much wider issue than male primogeniture, but reform of the succession to hereditary peerages and baronetcies raises a variety of complex issues, and therefore any changes need careful consideration and wider engagement.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am very grateful for my noble friend’s reply. Does he agree that small, symbolic issues matter in our gradual progress towards female equality? The monarchy having shown the way in the matter of the inheritance of titles, will Her Majesty’s Government take whatever opportunity next presents itself to engage in the detailed consideration to which my noble friend refers?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, many proposals have been put forward, and many have failed to find support. I know that my noble friend put forward a Private Member’s Bill in 2013 for a voluntary approach, but the issues are, as I say, complex.
Baroness Gale (Lab) [V]
Is the Minister aware that, since 1958, only 326 life Peers created have been women, representing 21% of the total? Not one woman hereditary Peer sits in this House today, and that is why I fully agree with the views of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. Does the Minister agree that in any other place this would be regarded as totally unacceptable and could be reported to the Equality and Human Rights Commission as blatant discrimination?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, hereditary peerages are not currently created. There are life Peers in your Lordships’ House and the life peerage is gender-blind. There are 223 female Peers currently, 28% of the Members of the House of Lords. The Government’s aspiration is, of course, to see more.
Lord Tyler (LD) [V]
My Lords, do the Government accept that the simplest and quickest way to make progress in this direction, so far as this House is concerned, without complex legislation, would be to abolish the by-elections for hereditary Peers, since all the candidates are male? This temporary political fix of more than 20 years is well past its sell-by date. Will the Minister undertake to communicate to his colleagues the overwhelming view of this House that this should be included in the Government’s legislation for the coming Session?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, it is not for me to comment on legislation in the forthcoming Session, but I would advise the noble Lord not to be a betting man.
The Earl of Shrewsbury (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend will be totally aware that I am a product of male primogeniture, and he will realise, no doubt, that I have an interest in the whole subject. What plans, if any, do Her Majesty’s Government have to amend male primogeniture in the hereditary peerage and baronetage?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, a review is not currently under way. As I have explained, this is a complex issue and careful consideration will be needed.
Baroness Prashar (CB) [V]
While it is encouraging that the Prime Minister supports a 50:50 gender-balanced Parliament, it is very disappointing that progress has been so slow, and we still have a law that discriminates against women. What steps will be taken to ensure that women from minority communities are not left behind in whatever initiative is taken in this direction?
Lord True (Con)
The noble Baroness makes a very important point. Improving the diversity of Parliament is something to which I believe all political parties assent, and this Government no less than any other. Beyond your Lordships’ House, where we must sometimes look, there are now 220 female Members of Parliament; that is more women in the House of Commons than ever before. That is surely progress.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, raises the issue of male primogeniture, which is clearly unfair, but I have to say that, of all the issues of gender equality where I would seek to make a difference, it is probably not top of my list. I bring the Minister back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler. Hereditary by-elections have had their day; the legislation is outdated. If we want to address what is clearly an inequality, in that there are no female hereditary Peers in this House—the issue of peerages outside the House is a completely different one—surely the Government should support the Grocott Bill when it will undoubtedly come before your Lordships’ House again, and not let it be wrecked by a few. It is time for the Government to show some courage on this issue.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, the Government assent to the rule of law, and I believe that the law as is should be applied in this respect.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I have to declare an interest as a hereditary Peer but one who has only a daughter. I suggest that the Government will lose nothing by bringing forward something that allows this to happen. As for hereditary by-elections, given that people who were conceived after the system was instituted are now voting adults, surely it has had its day and has not worked as a stimulus to further reform.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I think we have discussed the issue of hereditary by-elections. On the matter of succession to titles, any change would affect many families, many of whom have no claim to be Members of your Lordships’ House, and all those issues and interests would have to be considered.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, male primogeniture is indefensible and damages our striving for equality and justice. Ever-increasing numbers of Members are being appointed to this House and, continuing in the time-honoured tradition, men are favoured, leaving just 223 female Members in this Chamber, as the Minister indicated. I welcome the Minister’s assurance and the Prime Minister’s promise, but, given the perceptible resistance to recognising institutional gender and race discrimination, what plans are in place to remedy this?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, until we have full reform of your Lordships’ House, if Parliament decides on that, recommendations for life peerages are in the hands of leaders of political parties. Of Peers appointed by the current Prime Minister, 32% have been women, as against 29% under Gordon Brown and 23% under Mr Blair. Again, I suggest that that represents progress.
The Earl of Caithness (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest as a hereditary Peer. My noble friend the Minister said that this requires careful consideration and is a complex matter: that is everyday meat for any Government. Will my noble friend encourage his right honourable friend the Secretary of State to undertake a review of this matter once and for all, so that the eldest child can inherit a title where that is applicable?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I am sure my friends and I will read the views of my noble friend, and indeed all others who have spoken, with due respect. However, I believe that, at the height of this pandemic, and given the need we have to recover, it may well be that some people in the country have other priorities.
Baroness Deech (CB) [V]
Whether or not hereditary peerages remain, it is time to get some sex equality into this House. The husbands of noble Baronesses get second-class treatment, and this is highly symbolic. Only a few days ago, the entire nation noted the essential support given by Prince Philip to his wife, but the support given by the husbands of noble Baronesses is ignored compared with the recognition, by the title “Lady”, of the wives of noble Lords. Does the Minister agree that our husbands should be given a title equivalent to that granted to the wives, or that the latter should lose theirs?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness touches on another issue which has its own sensitivities. Reform of courtesy titles in the honours system as well as the peerage system—this is not a matter of heredity—may not be straightforward, but there is a need to consider how to deal with existing entitlements.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that I was deputy to two women Secretaries of State—Clare Short and Helen Liddell, now my noble friend Lady Liddell of Coatdyke—who were both excellent Cabinet Ministers? Since Boris Johnson has only five women in his Cabinet, could the Minister use his undoubted influence and have a word with him to appoint more women instead of old Etonians and male clones?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I hope the noble Lord does not see in me a clone of the Prime Minister—my hair is a different colour, for a start. I would love to have the noble Lord as my deputy. I repeat that the aspiration of the Prime Minister, reflected in peerage creations and the number of MPs in the House of Commons, is to see more women in Parliament.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked.
Domestic Air Travel
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the passing of a law by the National Assembly of France to prohibit domestic flights to destinations that can be reached by train in two and a half hours or less, what consideration they have given to reducing domestic air travel in the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, domestic air travel in the UK ensures regional connectivity and often assists ongoing international travel. It is also vital for supporting jobs, trade and investment and ensures that social connections can be maintained. The Government recognise the critical role that aviation plays in delivering the UK’s net-zero commitment, and we support a variety of technology, fuel and market-based measures to address aviation emissions.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
It is interesting that our Government are slower to see the societal changes happening because of the pandemic than the French Government. In France, people do not want to travel as much; they have found that remote working is very effective and it has not affected the economy of most big businesses. Will the Government, after all their fine promises today, stop airport expansion and create some policies which will enable jobs to be green instead of planet-destroying?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The noble Baroness has deviated far from the Question at hand. Of course the Government are very focused on a green, sustainable recovery. As she will have noted in media reports today, the Government will announce further details on carbon emissions later this week.
Lord Haselhurst (Con) [V]
My Lords, as high-speed rail lines seem to attract stronger opposition in this country than in France, does my noble friend agree that a better course of action than that suggested by the noble Baroness would be to prioritise investment in electric and hydrogen-powered aircraft to better serve the regional network?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My noble friend is quite right that we need an aviation sector strong enough to be able to invest in decarbonisation for the future. Alongside the aviation industry, the Government are investing in the Aerospace Technology Institute, which is leading work on the delivery of zero-emission aircraft. This includes FlyZero, a £15 million project that will last for 12 months and is an in-depth study into the potential for zero-emission aircraft by 2030.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB) [V]
My Lords, given the Prime Minister’s very welcome endorsement of climate control, does the Minister agree that the statistic that on a similar route an aircraft emits 77% more CO2 than a train is clearly striking? On the other hand, does she also agree that France will probably scrap only five routes as a result of this initiative, so in this country—depending, as we have heard, on the efficiency of trains—there are sadly not many routes to which this initiative would apply?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The noble Lord is quite right; I have looked at this and there are probably three routes to which this would apply—for Manchester, Leeds Bradford and Exeter. Our expectation is that many passengers travelling on those domestic routes would be making an international connection, so even in France their flights would not be banned. This Government do not propose to ban domestic flights; we propose investing in high-speed rail and ensuring that our aviation sector as a whole contributes to decarbonisation.
Lord Snape (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister acknowledge that the speed of the French TGV had an enormous impact on the internal aviation market in that country and that timings under HS2 such as two hours and 17 minutes to Newcastle and 67 minutes to Manchester, as well as the hope for three hours to Glasgow and Edinburgh, will have a similar impact on Britain’s internal aviation? I know that she is not a member of the Green Party, but perhaps she could help me out and explain on its behalf why it is in favour of slower trains on Victorian infrastructure yet against modern high-speed trains on new infrastructure.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I would love to help the noble Lord. I fear that I am unable to explain it, and the irony in this Question is very clear to me; investment in High Speed 2 is clearly good for the environment and should be continued. As he identified, the journey time savings can be significant as well as capacity.
Lord Bradshaw (LD) [V]
My Lords, yesterday I obtained the figures of the cost of travelling from London to Manchester and Newcastle, and from Paris to Lyons and Marseilles. The costs in France by train in all classes are at least half what they are here, and in France you go twice as fast. You get a double benefit for the money spent. A lot of answers need to come from the Treasury as to why rail fares in Britain are so much higher than they are elsewhere.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The noble Lord is quite right that customers could and should make various decisions based on price. That is why the Government asked for the Williams Rail Review to be done; I recognise that it has not yet been published, because of the pandemic, but it will come out shortly. The way we reform our railway systems should have a very positive impact on fares.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab) [V]
My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is a group of Green Party members who call themselves Greens for HS2? They say on social media:
“we should support HS2 because it has a big role in a low-CO2 sustainable transport network for the UK in the 2030s and beyond. HS2 supports our sustainable transport goals, nationally and locally.”
Does the Minister agree that our HS2 project will support the climate case to shift travel from air and road and, indeed, improve wildlife biodiversity? While we are about it, can she confirm that there is no question of delaying the eastern leg of HS2 to the East Midlands, Sheffield and Leeds?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, indicated to me in the Chamber just then that they are a very small group within the Green Party. I, for one, offer them my wholehearted support, given that they are able to take over the Green Party’s transport policy and align with the Government, who want to see HS2 built.
Lord Balfe (Con)
I point out to the Minister that the Greens are now a very respectable party. They will probably go into coalition with the CDU and they are on the point of destroying the German Social Democratic Party. It is therefore not surprising that they support HS2; it is completely in line with the way in which they are re-evaluating themselves. Will the Minister welcome this change from the Green Party, stick a note on her office wall and use it regularly in debates in this Chamber?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I do not have a great insight into the Green Party of Germany, but I thank my noble friend for his contribution.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, may I suggest to the Minister that she too establishes a new party, “Conservatives for the eastern leg of HS2”? She used to support this policy, but it has now been delayed and no date has been given. As a result of the delay, there will be no through trains on HS2 between London and Edinburgh—a route that is one of the main sources of domestic aviation. I strongly urge her to be the founding member of “Conservatives for the eastern leg of HS2”.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I have neither the time nor the energy to set up a new political party, but I reassure the noble Lord that the integrated rail plan will be published soon and will set out plans for the north of England. We are taking great interest in journey times to, for example, Scotland, under the auspices of the union connectivity review being undertaken by Sir Peter Hendy.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD) [V]
My Lords, I must declare an interest as I am speaking from France. Does the Minister agree that this is about not only the practicalities—it may affect only four routes—but setting an example in the year in which we are to host COP 26? Does she agree that by taking this action on domestic flights, scrapping support for electric vehicles and slashing the Green Homes Grant, the Government are setting a very poor example?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I wish the noble Baroness well in France—and I am sure that I join many in this House in saying that I would quite like to join her. On the premise of this Question, I have outlined that the Government clearly do not support banning domestic flights. That would be absolutely wrong. The noble Baroness also mentioned some other interventions. We have not scrapped electric vehicle grants, as she well knows. The amount of money available is the same, but we want to ensure that it gets to the people who need it most: those who will buy slightly less expensive cars because they probably have a lower income. Therefore, we wanted to make sure that the support that the Government give goes to those cars. Of course, it also encourages the manufacturers to reduce the prices of their cars.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now resume. I ask Members to respect social distancing.
Football: European Super League
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Faulkner of Worcester
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to reform the governance of English football to prevent the breakaway of six Premier League clubs into a European Super League.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, the Government will not stand by and watch football be stripped of the things that make millions across the country love it. We will continue to look at everything within our power to stop this proposal going ahead. The Secretary of State spoke to the FA, the Premier League and UEFA yesterday to give them the Government’s full support in pushing back on these proposals in the first instance. However, we stand ready to do whatever is necessary to represent fans and protect their interests.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the six English clubs that have signed up to this grotesque project have, in the words of Stephen Fry on social media yesterday,
“brought together the whole divided nation, indeed all of Europe—everyone united in disgust & revulsion at such greed and stupidity.”
I look forward to hearing more in due course about how the Government plan to stop it. Meanwhile, I welcome the announcement of the setting up of the Government’s fan-led review into the administration of English football, chaired by the excellent Tracey Crouch MP. Can the Minister assure me that the terms of reference for the review will definitely include the possibility of establishing a statutory independent regulator? Reform here is long overdue.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his warm welcome to the announcement of the fan-led review and its chair. I can confirm that it will cover the merits of having an independent regulator, as well as financial sustainability and governance.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, do the Government agree that many people regard this proposal as an attack on our cultural heritage? In light of that, will they be even fiercer in trying to prevent these clubs forming in effect a cartel to control the revenues of the biggest spectator sport in the world? Will they make sure that other European nations are actively involved with them in preventing this?
Baroness Barran (Con)
We absolutely agree that this is an attack on our heritage, and nothing is off the table when it comes to protecting it, as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said yesterday.
Lord Laming (CB) [V]
My Lords, the clubs supporting this proposal often claim that their fans are the beating heart of all that they do, yet sometimes it seems as if the loyalty of these very fans counts for little. Yesterday’s ministerial Statement was most welcome, but can the noble Baroness assure the House that, before any further action is taken, each of these clubs will be required to put the proposal to a vote, at least of their season ticket holders?
Baroness Barran (Con)
It will be up to the football authorities in the first instance to determine how to deal with this proposal but, as I have made clear, they have our full backing.
Lord Grade of Yarmouth (Con) [V]
My forecast on the outcome of the Super League proposal will be some resolution through the courts, not the legislatures. The last time the courts were involved in football governance we ended up with the Bosman ruling, which just created more and more millionaire players and their agents, which was hardly in the public interest. Do this Government accept that they may well be powerless to intervene when my learned friends on both sides of the channel start to challenge the cartels that run football on behalf of the Super League?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I hope that my noble friend’s prediction about a resolution in the courts is wrong, because that implies a long and drawn-out process. As I have said, the Government are exploring all options to prevent this proposal, and we will continue to work with the football authorities and our counterparts across Europe to achieve this.
Lord Pendry (Lab)
My Lords, I commend the robust stance taken by the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and all those who have condemned this proposal for a so-called super league. It is unfortunate that five of the six clubs involved are foreign owned, with clearly no understanding of the depth of feeling of British supporters, who recognise that the football league structure is based on our heritage. Therefore, we must fight to ensure that this Super League is swept away and that football does not fall on the altar of greed and avarice. It was one of the great football managers, the late Bill Shankly at Liverpool, who once slightly exaggerated the interpretation of football’s importance when he said that football is not,
“a matter of life and death: it’s much more important than that.”
If Bill were here today, what would he think of his beloved Liverpool pursuing this act of folly? Will the Minister go along with the football supporters to show this group of individuals the red flag, or should I say the red card?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I do not think that the owners of the clubs to which the noble Lord refers can be in any doubt about the strength of feeling both from the fans and from this Government.
Lord McNally (LD)
My Lords, will the Minister ask Tracey Crouch to hold public hearings around the regions while she conducts her inquiry?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am sure that she will consider all her options to make sure that this is a transparent and effective review.
Lord O'Neill of Gatley (CB) [V]
My Lords, I too express my disgust at this development. It is the culmination of many years of the style of ownership that has been so permissible under the way football has evolved. I am extremely sad that my own football obsession, Manchester United, is right in the middle of it. I applaud the Government’s seemingly strong stance. In this regard, I echo the call from the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, for an independent regulator to stop things persistently falling through the cracks of the structure of the FA, the Football League and the Premier League. Will the Government be prepared to go as far as introducing legislation to encourage a partial fan-based ownership model, similar to that currently operating in Germany? It is almost definitely, with no surprise, among the reasons why no German teams have been announced as part of this ridiculously named European Super League.
Baroness Barran (Con)
The Government have been consulting with fans and football stakeholders throughout the past year to understand exactly what is needed in the review. The Prime Minister and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State have both said that legislation is not ruled out, but we should not pre-empt the work of the review, which will start shortly.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I, too, commend the Government on their robust response. As a Tottenham Hotspur supporter, a club that is involved in this, I, too, join in the condemnation of this idea. It seems to revolve around money rather than football. I ask my noble friend whether the Treasury might consider international tax co-ordination to address this issue via financial means?
Baroness Barran (Con)
My noble friend raises an interesting point. We have been clear that the football authorities are best placed to push back on these proposals in the first instance—they have our backing—but that nothing is off the table if they fail to do so.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thought Gary Neville spoke for millions of us football fans at the weekend when he condemned the Super League proposals. Can the Minister set out the sort of legal measures the Government are prepared to deploy in order to protect the competition laws that govern the current fair access system on which the football pyramid has long been built? When will the Secretary of State set out the terms for the fan-led review announced yesterday, when will it start and how will it seek to draw on the fan anger rightly directed at this football-destroying proposition?
Baroness Barran (Con)
With regard to the fan-led review, we will be releasing the full terms of reference imminently. In relation to the noble Lord’s question about what the Government can practically do to prevent this, we are looking at everything from governance reform, as I mentioned, to competition law and all the mechanisms which allow football to take place. We have been in close contact with colleagues from BEIS and the Competition and Markets Authority, who are examining whether this would contravene competition law.
Lord King of Lothbury (CB) [V]
Does the Minister agree that the outpouring of concern about the proposed European Super League shows that the organisation of professional football is not just a matter for private clubs to determine among themselves and that the relationship between clubs and their fans is not the same as that between a supermarket and its customers? Has not the time come to create a regulatory framework within which the governance and finances of the game can be managed with a degree of competence that has been sadly lacking in recent years?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Lord is absolutely right, and this will be covered in our fan-led review. I think the House will share my confidence in Tracey Crouch as its chair, as the former Minister for Sport is very well placed to lead this.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I react with some horror to the proposals for yet another regulator, which will end up simply being gamed by the big clubs, as most regulators tend to be. Instead I second the remarks of my noble friend Lady Altmann, who said that there should be a fiscal solution to this problem by way of imposing a non-dodgeable tax on sports clubs joining closed leagues, which I suggest should be equivalent to 100% of their broadcasting revenues. Would my noble friend be willing to put this to the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
Baroness Barran (Con)
There is great elegance in the apparent simplicity of my noble friend’s suggestions, but I just repeat that in the first instance, it is for the football authorities to deal with this and respond to the outpouring that we have heard from across the country.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, clubs cannot hoover up £300 million a year and pay the world’s best players wages that nobody else can match so that they can dominate domestic competitions as well. Fans of other clubs, such as Leicester, West Ham and my club, Villa, could never dream of competing for domestic trophies ever again. It is a closed shop cartel, anti-competition, anti fair play, and anti the very ethos of sport. Of course the football authorities should take a tough line, but the Government should be looking at this as well. The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, is entirely correct: given that this is just about money, would not the threat of a windfall tax make the clubs think again?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I share many of the noble Lord’s sentiments, other than the implication that we are not taking this seriously: we are taking it extremely seriously. The Prime Minister had a round table this morning with all the relevant authorities and, as I said, nothing is off the table.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, does the Minister accept that this outrageous proposal is a consequence of men who are rich enough to buy a football club but who do not buy into the values of football in this country? We all accept that Tracey Crouch is someone we have confidence in to undertake a review, but surely there is an urgency about this that requires action at the moment along the lines that have been suggested, including early legislation for an independent regulator, an assurance that fans can have a golden share and whatever fiscal measures might be needed to make it not worth the while of these clubs to go down this path?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I know the noble Baroness is hugely knowledgeable and passionate on this subject, and I have enjoyed listening to her in the Chamber in debates on football ownership and governance in the past. It is important that we separate out the immediate urgencies of the issues raised by this proposal. It will not surprise her to know that Ministers and officials were working on this over the weekend as soon as we became aware, as well as addressing some of the wider governance and regulatory issues and funding issues that affect the whole pyramid.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked.
Audiovisual Media Services (Amendment) Regulations 2021
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Barran
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 25 February be approved.
Relevant document: 48th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 13 April
Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill [HL]
Tuesday 20th April 2021
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill [HL] 2019-21 View all Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill [HL] 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 22 March 2021 - (22 Mar 2021)
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now resume. I ask all Members to respect social distancing.
There are no counterpropositions to the Commons amendments to the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill, so the only speakers are those listed and the Minister’s Motion may not be opposed. Short questions of elucidation from listed speakers after the Minister’s response are discouraged. A Member wishing to ask such a question must email the clerk.
Motion
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 1 and 2.
“(iv) an offence under the law of Scotland which arises under any other provision of the ANO 2016 and relates to unmanned aircraft, except an offence which is triable only summarily;”
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, I do not intend to detain the House for long with my explanation of these amendments, save only to note that the Bill had a relatively incident-free passage through the other place, which I, to a great extent, attribute to the careful consideration it received in your Lordships’ House.
The Bill has returned to enable consideration of two minor amendments made in the other place. The first is Commons Amendment 1, which removed the privilege amendment, as is the norm in these cases. The second amendment—here is the mea culpa—will correct an omission, or an error if you must, in the Bill that resulted from government amendments made in your Lordships’ House on Report.
If I may explain: Schedule 8 provides the police, the Civil Nuclear Constabulary and custodial institutions with the powers they need to protect the public from the unlawful use of unmanned aircraft. Paragraph 5 of Schedule 8 sets out the meaning of “relevant unmanned aircraft offence”. Prior to the government amendment made in the other place, the offences in the Air Navigation Order 2016—ANO 2016—included in this definition were summary-only offences. In relation to Scotland, this definition should also include offences in ANO 2016 that are triable either way or on indictment. These offences were included in the definition of “relevant offence” in the Bill as introduced in January 2020. They were inadvertently omitted—that was the error, for which I apologise—by the government amendments tabled on Report in the House of Lords when the provisions setting out the definitions that apply in relation to the power to enter and search under warrant and the supplementary power to retain anything seized were restructured. If not moved, there would be no power for a justice of the peace, summary sheriff or a sheriff in Scotland to issue to a constable a warrant to enter and search premises in relation to offences in the ANO 2016 that relate to unmanned aircraft and can be tried under indictment. The supplementary power for a constable to retain items seized using powers in Schedule 8 for forensic examination, for investigation or for use as evidence at a trial would also not apply in relation to these offences.
The policy intention of the Bill remains unchanged and this amendment will not add any offences or powers not already in the Bill as introduced in January 2020. With humility and apologies from the Department for Transport, I beg to move.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am pleased to support the Commons amendments as technical changes necessary for the functioning of the Bill. The aviation industry is critical to the UK economy, and since any recovery will no doubt be prolonged, I hope the Bill will provide legislative backing for a modernisation strategy that supports that recovery. Any restructuring must be supported with a transitional strategy, for workers and our regional economy, that capitalises on the opportunity to grow industries in green technology. I look forward to the House revisiting this in the future. I am grateful that the noble Baroness, Lady Vere of Norbiton, has engaged with the Opposition Front Bench during the passage of the Bill. I also thank all those from across the House who have taken part in its stages.
Lord Bradshaw (LD) [V]
My Lords, I too would like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, for her gracious apology on behalf of the department for its omission. Of course, I accept that the amendments are necessary and, like the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, I thank all the people who have been associated with the Bill during its fairly long passage. I hope it may now pass into law.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, I too support these amendments. Finally, this Bill, which started its passage through Parliament in January 2020 is to reach the statute book. I am sure that, with a justified sense of pride and relief, the Minister and all those in her Bill team, who worked so hard to achieve this outcome, deserve the commendation received from all sides of the House.
It is a piece of legislation that will not stand still. The announcement that the CAA has approved trials of beyond-visual-sight operation of drones will need to be reflected in the instructions for policing unmanned aircraft presently set out in this legislation. That process will continue, I hope smoothly, as technology and experience help to chart the way ahead. Meanwhile, I join in commending the efforts made to enact this important business, for air traffic management in particular.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I thank all noble Lords for their constructive engagement on these amendments, and for their comments and short contributions today.
Non-Domestic Rating (Public Lavatories) Bill
Tuesday 20th April 2021
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Non-Domestic Rating (Public Lavatories) Bill 2019-21 View all Non-Domestic Rating (Public Lavatories) Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 131-R-I Marshalled list for Report - (12 Mar 2021)
The Minister of State, Home Office and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)
My Lords, in moving this Motion, I express my thanks to noble Lords from across this House for their helpful insight and support throughout proceedings. In particular, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock, Lady Thomas, Lady Andrews, Lady Randerson and Lady Greengross, and the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Greaves, my noble friend Lord Lucas, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton.
I also thank the National Association of Local Councils, the Local Government Association and the Valuation Office Agency for their engagement during the passage of the Bill. I am especially grateful to the British Toilet Association for its support of the Bill and for taking the time to meet me and noble Lords last month.
Finally, I thank my department’s Bill team: Rhys Tomlinson, Nick Pellegrini, Luke Turner, Alan Millward, Nick Cooper, Lee Davies and Tom Adams, as well as Sam Loxton from my own private office, for their support throughout the passage of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, for his engagement in this small but important Bill. I am pleased that it is finally now going to pass; this is the second time I have worked on this Bill—because it was lost before the general election—so it is something I am very well aware of. I thank the noble Lord; he has been very helpful, as always. I join him in thanking all the organisations he mentioned—the LGA, the National Association of Local Councils, the British Toilet Association and others—for their helpful advice, guidance and support. I also thank Ben Wood from the Labour group office for his help and support on the Bill.
I thank all noble Lords who engaged in the Bill, particularly Lord Greaves, whose last speech in this House was on this Bill, as noble Lords may remember, some weeks ago, before he sadly passed away. Although Tony was in a different party from me, he was well respected in the House and was a very good man. He worked as a local councillor and as a Member of this House and he will be missed by us all. I am delighted that the Bill is going to pass.
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
My Lords, I point to my interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and a member of Kirklees Council. Liberal Democrats support the measures in this Bill, and during the debate we have sought to improve accessibility and to extend the reach of the Bill to include other public buildings. I thank the Minister for his positive responses during the passage of the Bill, and for the meetings he held to enable an exchange of ideas. I also extend my thanks to those associations that have helped in the progress of the Bill, so that we all understood exactly what we were trying to achieve.
The Bill was the last time my noble friend Lord Greaves spoke in the House before his sudden and untimely death. It was typical Tony: promoting the value of parish and town councils, making a strong case for the very basic and essential public services provided for communities by local government, and exploring the meaning of the word “mainly”, used throughout the Bill. Tony will be greatly missed on these Benches for his humanity and commitment to communities. I rest my case there and thank the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, for his help in getting this Bill passed.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, it is my pleasant task, on behalf of these Benches, to thank the Minister for the gracious way in which he has conducted this Bill. We have had no Divisions. The Bill has survived unamended, but it has certainly not been without interest, and the Minister has been faced with some powerful contributions during our debates that he has had to answer. We are grateful to him and the Bill team for the care that has been taken in examining the various points that have been raised.
It will not have escaped the Minister’s attention that two of us participating from these Benches had a professional interest in the subject. One was a valuer, with an interest in the valuation aspects, and I am a lawyer, interested in the legal aspects. For both of us, the question was how one could accommodate the undoubted need for public lavatories, in the places where people need them, within the valuation and ratings system. Standalone premises, which this Bill is about, present no problems of that kind, but increasingly, the provision of publicly accessible lavatories within other premises, such as public libraries, is a different matter. The two of us were very much in sympathy with others who were asking the Minister to be more imaginative and generous in searching for a solution to the problem, but we found it as hard as he did to see how this could be done within the boundaries of the existing law and practice of how buildings are valued for rating purposes. In short, the narrow focus of the Bill has been the problem.
Everyone recognises that this is a significant public health issue and an environmental issue. Everyone—young and old, healthy or infirm—needs access to decent lavatory accommodations. There is genuine regret on these Benches and throughout the House that the Bill was unable to go further than it has in finding other ways to meet this need. I hope that the Government will take away from these debates a better understanding of ways in which this could be done by the ideas that have been put forward by various amendments from all around the House. If so, the time that we have spent developing these ideas in debate will have been time well spent. I hope and expect that we have not heard the last word on the subject of public lavatories.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, we have seen the very best of this House. I really appreciated the professional expertise on the Cross Benches, from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. It was incredibly helpful. This is a very complicated area of public policy and it is great to have that expertise to hand.
I add my personal tribute to Lord Greaves. I did not know him particularly well, but he welcomed me as a fellow traveller from local government, where our political paths were very similar. He was almost schooling me on the nature of a probing amendment. I do not think that I have ever had such a lengthy discussion about the word “mainly”. He will be sadly missed.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now resume. I ask Members to respect social distancing. I will call Members to speak in the order listed. As there are counterpropositions to one of the Motions, and everything is to be taken in one group, any Member in the Chamber may speak on this group, subject to usual seating arrangements and the capacity of the Chamber. Anyone intending to do so should email the clerk or indicate when asked. Members who do not intend to speak should make room for Members who do. All speakers will be called by the Chair. Short questions of elucidation after the Minister’s response are discouraged; a Member wishing to ask such a question must email the clerk.
The grouping is binding. A participant who wishes to press an amendment other than the lead amendment to a Division must give notice in debate or by emailing the clerk. Leave should be given to withdraw Motions. When putting the Question, I will collect voices in the Chamber only. If a Member taking part remotely wants their voice accounted for if the Question is put, they must make this clear when speaking on the group. Lords following proceedings remotely but not speaking may submit their voice, content or not content, to the collection of voices by emailing the clerk during the debate. Members cannot vote by email; the way to vote is via the remote voting system.
Fire Safety Bill
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:06 - Division conducted remotely on Motion A1 - Ayes: 322 / Noes: 236 - Motion A1 agreed.
Lord Greenhalgh
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 4B and 4C, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 4F.
The Minister of State, Home Office and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for engaging in this important debate throughout the passage of the Bill. We all share the same concerns about the impact that the cost of remediation is having on many leaseholders and tenants. We all agree that we have to protect leaseholders as far as practicable. All in this House agree that residents deserve to be and feel safe in their homes.
I will go on to explain why we consider the proposed amendments in lieu to be both inappropriate and unworkable but first, I want to outline in the strongest way possible the importance of the Bill and the risk that these remediation amendments are creating. Let us be in no doubt about what is at stake here.
Throughout the passage of the Bill, we have all agreed with the fundamental purpose of what we seek to achieve. We all want to ensure that there is no legal doubt that, under the fire safety order, the responsible person must assess and, as appropriate, identify any fire safety risks relating to the external walls and entrance doors in multi-occupied residential buildings.
We also agree that the current legal ambiguity under the fire safety order is unhelpful. If we do not rectify this now with this Bill, there will be significant ramifications. If we do not clarify this legal ambiguity, responsible persons can continue to argue that they can lawfully and deliberately ignore the external walls and flat entrance doors in their fire risk assessments. This inaction will mean that important defects will not be identified and be left unremedied, potentially increasing fire safety risks for anyone living in such buildings.
Given the repeated agreement, across both Houses, that we need to act, I think we would all also agree that this Bill should go on to the statue book in the next few days. The Commons has already voted against two different remediation amendments put forward by your Lordships’ House, and by substantial majorities of 115 and 69. Prior to that, the issue of remediation costs was discussed at both Commons Committee and Report stages, so the Commons has considered the issue of who pays at four different stages and voted on it twice—each time supporting the Government’s view that provision of this kind is unnecessary. This House has done what is right and proper as a revising Chamber, namely, to ask the Commons to think again—not once, but twice. It is time for your Lordships’ House to respect the will of the elected Chamber. To continue to deny the wishes of the democratically elected Chamber, particularly where the result is an increase in fire safety risks, could ultimately cost lives.
I underline that this Government are committed to protecting leaseholders and tenants from the costs of remediation. Hundreds of thousands of leaseholders will be protected from the costs of replacing unsafe cladding on their homes, as part of the Government’s five-point plan to provide reassurance to home owners and build confidence in the housing market. The £5.1 billion grant funding made available to leaseholders is unprecedented. We take these issues seriously and we are acting. To say otherwise is misrepresentative and simply not correct.
The Government are also taking forward a comprehensive programme of reform to end unfair practices in the leasehold market, from the abolition of ground rents to revising the use of forfeiture. Our plan to alleviate the burden of paying for remediation costs is, and should be, considered as part of this comprehensive programme.
We recognise that the implementation of the Fire Safety Bill will lead to more remediation issues being identified, but there will be occasions when other measures to mitigate the risk are required, rather than extensive remedial works. To suggest that this Bill will unleash hundreds of thousands of costs is incorrect; we have always argued that building owners must take a proportionate, risk based-approach that takes into account the possibility of risk to life in properties, which for most leaseholders is mercifully low. This Bill applies to all buildings with two or more dwellings; the number of buildings that require substantive remedial works is relatively small, as the vast majority of lower-rise buildings will not require the type of remedial work discussed in the House today.
If noble Lords cast their minds back to the previous stages of the Bill, they will find widespread support for clarifying the fire safety order and legislating to implement the Grenfell inquiry recommendations. In fact, the criticism was that we should have introduced sooner and gone faster. It is therefore getting increasingly difficult to square the sentiment of noble Lords at the beginning of the passage of the Bill with the actions of some Peers now.
Let me point to two examples. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, for his candid engagement with me during the passage of the Bill. He tabled amendments in Committee and on Report to, in his words,
“make progress in respect of the recommendations of the first phase of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry.”—[Official Report, 17/11/20; col. 1367.]
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, urged the Government at Second Reading to get on with the process of legislating. She said that she supported the direction of travel the Government are taking on the Bill but, in her words,
“the route being taken is too slow.”—[Official Report, 1/10/20; col. 350.]
Tabling and voting for these amendments is inconsistent with pressing the Government to act quicker. Pushing the Fire Safety Bill back to the other place jeopardises it completing its passage before the end of this Session. When I last spoke on the Bill in this House, I said that this Government intend to bring forward regulations to deliver the Grenfell Tower inquiry phase one recommendations before the second anniversary of the inquiry publishing its report, but this is subject to the Bill first gaining Royal Assent. If the Bill is not finalised in this Session, there will be a delay of potentially a year or more in delivering the inquiry’s recommendations.
I will comment in detail on the amendments in lieu in my closing address but, for now, I leave everyone across this House with two key points. First, the Government are unreservedly committed to protecting leaseholders from the costs of remediation. We have announced an unprecedented level of funding in this regard and will publish more details on how it can be accessed.
Secondly, do not let this issue prevent the Fire Safety Bill getting on to the statute book. Pushing the Bill back to the other place this close to the end of the Session risks that, and risks not implementing an important legal clarification that will improve fire safety and help to protect lives. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
At end insert “but do propose Amendment 4J in lieu—
“Prohibition on passing remediation costs on to leaseholders and tenants pending operation of a statutory scheme
(1) The owner of a building may not pass the costs of any remedial work attributable to the provisions of this Act on to leaseholders or tenants of that building.
(2) This section has effect only until a statutory scheme is in operation which ensures that leaseholders and tenants of dwellings do not have to pay for remedial work attributable to the provisions of this Act.
(3) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to a leaseholder who is also the owner or part owner of the freehold of the building.””
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I give notice of my intention to seek the opinion of the House when the time comes, and declare my interest as a vice-president of the LGA.
When there is a crisis, we look to Her Majesty’s Government for radical and rapid action. Ministers are good at calling stakeholders to gather around the table. Just yesterday, in the other place, Minister Oliver Dowden said he was appalled by a situation. He promised Members that they should
“be no doubt that if they cannot act, we will … We will put everything on the table to prevent this from happening … Put simply, we will review everything the Government do to support”
this. He went on:
“We will do whatever it takes.”—[Official Report, Commons, 19/4/21; col. 676.]
Indeed, this situation is so important that it is said that the Prime Minister has decided to rearrange his busy diary and intervene personally to hold a round table to resolve the problem. The trouble is that the radical action being talked about concerns the European Super League, not the hundreds of thousands of people who, at this very moment, are facing desperate dilemmas.
I deeply regret having to come back; I know that it is a nuisance and that people are fed up. But this is the first time in my ministry that I have been stopped on the street in St Albans three times in a week by people saying, “Thank you for what you are doing”. So, I come back hugely reluctantly. I want to see this Bill get on to the statute book, I really do. I hope that we will do all we can, if necessary sitting late, to make sure that when it comes back, if it has to do so, it will get on to the statute book; I do not want to hold it up. This is a good Bill, which seeks to implement a recommendation from the Grenfell inquiry. It is of the utmost importance that our dwellings are safe and people can sleep at night.
However, the consequences of this legislation have a huge impact on leaseholders. The Government, whom I thank very much, have committed £5 billion. I accept that this is unprecedented and a wonderful thing; I want to affirm what the Government have done. However, as things stand, the promised grant and loan schemes are not even operational. I am grateful to the Minister—we have had two meetings in the last week—and I know that they are working as hard and as fast as they can, but the schemes are not operational, there are no dates and no assurance has been given on, for example, whether it will be possible to apply retrospectively.
The moment that the Bill passes, those who would ordinarily be excluded from paying for replacement cladding under the government scheme could, within months, be handed very large bills. Likewise, these bills will be handed to those who should have replacement cladding costs capped at £50 per month under the government scheme. The result, I fear, will be bankruptcies, enormous mental health strains, and possibly worse. Part—though only part—of the problem is that there have been no assurances to prevent the remediation costs being passed on to leaseholders until the Government’s own scheme is operational. This shows the complexity of what we are facing. I do not pretend that this is easy, or that my proposal will solve everything but, for example, other historical fire safety defects not covered by this scheme still have the potential to bankrupt leaseholders. I remind the House again of the additional financial issues crippling leaseholders: interim fire safety costs and high insurance policy premiums. Just today I received an email about a building where the insurance last year was £11,963 but, in one year, has gone up to £242,400 because the insurers believe that the building is not safe.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
My Lords, if Motions A1 and A3 were both agreed to, A3 would replace A1.
The Earl of Lytton (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and to speak to Motion A2 in my name. I refer to my vice-presidency of the LGA and my professional involvement with property and construction over many years. I thank the Minister for keeping his door open for discussion; that has been enormously helpful. This amendment is an attempt to find a way out of what I see as an impasse, which, if not dealt with, may cause unquantifiable financial loss, bankruptcy and hardship—as referred to by the right reverend Prelate.
I am indebted to my local fire and rescue service in West Sussex and to the National Fire Chiefs Council, for briefing me on the task ahead of them. I am sure we all agree that they do a fantastic job in keeping us all safe and dealing with risks in a fair and proportionate manner. I am also indebted to Members in another place who have convinced me that the issues I seek to address cannot simply be brushed aside. This is not a challenge to the essential principles of the Bill, which I entirely agree are critical in the light of the Grenfell Tower tragedy.
The problem arises because although the Bill is short and apparently inoffensive, and from a fire safety standpoint is the necessary reaction of any Government to a post-Grenfell inquiry, its means of implementation have much broader and effectively retroactive results. In amending the existing fire safety order’s scope, it extends to any building comprising two or more residential units. It relates not just to cladding but, ultimately, to a much wider range of fire safety issues and to buildings not previously subject to that safety regime.
Noble Lords should bear in mind that there are two lead organisations here: the local authority through its housing functions in respect of houses in multiple occupation and student blocks, and the fire and rescue services, particularly for higher-risk and taller buildings.
Every time there is a fire in a flatted building, it adds to the malaise. When, in the wake of the Grenfell fire, a four-storey block in Worcester Park was destroyed in September 2019, it became clear to me that no Government can risk specifying a cut-off point of safe versus unsafe buildings, and I acknowledge that. So as matters stand, many relatively low-rise buildings, where risks are considered fewer and without a clear threshold, will, for a time, be caught by this long enough to cause serious problems for a significant number of tenants and leaseholders. It is this unconstrained exposure to uncertainty and risk, and the reaction of the markets to it, that has created the problems that we now encounter.
Crucially, there is a significant gap between now and the time when the first 12,000 over-18-metre buildings in England will have been checked, a process which is estimated to be completed by December this year. Then there will be a further period, lasting until some 68,000 further buildings in the 11 to 18 metre height range have been dealt with. During this period, the issue of proportionality and risk will be left to the febrile mortgage and insurance market. I have no doubt that fire safety inspectors will take a fairly strict approach, and indeed would expect them to, at any rate until further guidance is available—which guidance itself might be an outcome of the analysis of the first tranche of inspections of the highest-risk buildings. That delay occurs before one gets to the design and specification of the remediation works by those who might have to satisfy their own professional indemnity conditions, followed then by tendering and ultimately remediation.
The right reverend Prelate and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, in her amendment, endeavour to protect the tenant and leaseholder from the effects of the Bill by saying that they shall not bear the financial burden. I am compelled to express the view that this needs to be taken further: if, as a result, the building owner as freeholder is made liable for something that they in turn cannot afford or cannot be made responsible for, beyond the assets of whatever corporate ownership vehicle holds the freehold or other superior interest, then the liquidation of the holding company and the vesting of the negative-value asset in the hands of insolvency practitioners will do little to get the building remediated. To that extent, the responsible person under the Bill might be a man of straw, and that I see as a weakness in what the Government propose.
To deal with this, one needs a scheme, and the Government have commendably said that they will introduce one to fund remediation, but this suffers from several limitations. First, it applies only to cladding. Secondly, it does not cover all buildings with claddings—even less the other fire safety issues that the Bill might also trigger. Thirdly, I very much doubt that the sum allocated is enough. That said, I am extremely grateful for the government commitment to making £5 billion in funding available, as the Minister has explained.
Apart from properties becoming unsalable, uninsurable and unsuitable for mortgage lending, in some cases they might well be so risky as to be declared unsafe for occupation, pending remediation works. Displaced occupiers will be wondering what it is in the principle of safety and proportionality in relation to their own home, given the nightmare imposition of unimaginable costs and liabilities, that justifies rendering them homeless in addition. Of course, it might well not come to that, and it is my purpose to encourage the Government to ensure that there is a scheme to make certain that it does not. The full extent of the problems may still be yet to come, but I strongly suspect that many of the responsible persons are holding on until this Bill receives Royal Assent before proceeding further.
No Government can simply look on and say that it is not an issue of a very serious kind when people have been seriously threatened in their own homes by negative equity, bankruptcy and worse. With an entire market section being blighted, action is essential. By the same token, no agency apart from government has the power to procure a change, which ultimately must be by some form of consensus, but which requires regulatory and other powers—or the threat of them—and a degree of arm-twisting involving some very powerful players. There are too many interests and moving parts here, and neither constructors, owners, leaseholders, tenants, insurers or mortgagees can procure effective solutions on their own. It is a systemic failure, in which it is right for the Government to intervene. Indeed, taking these hard decisions is why we have government intervention at all.
By the same token, if there is to be a government safety net of a type that is effective, no leaseholder can simply expect the taxpayer to foot the Bill for all and every fire-safety shortcoming. This is where, particularly in relation to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, I differ from that approach. I do not suggest that any of this gets construction warrantee providers, approved inspectors, designers, constructors, housebuilders or building managers off the hook. It will take time to establish liabilities; it is time that those finding themselves in financial fetters do not have at their disposal. That is the problem. Absolutism by government on the one hand and by leaseholders alike will not get the necessary work done or erase the terrible personal tragedies that I fear will result.
The deal is this: for a monthly sum which should be affordable, even if most unwelcome, the capital cost of remediation could be amortised via a loan, funds for early inspection and remediation raised, and works put in hand as soon as possible. This might also fund short-term interim safety measures. The long-term bond so created would, I believe, be saleable. The important thing for affected flat owners is that they could not be charged until a scheme was in place, but the scheme has to be driven initially by government, and that is what this amendment is about.
The current government scheme seems to be based on rolling things out in due course. I appreciate the Minister’s point that he does not wish the Government to be unduly pressurised or under the cosh on this, but the need to get this safety net into place right now is overwhelming. By the end of this coming summer, impossibly large bills are most certainly likely to have dropped onto doormats, prohibition notices and evacuation orders may be in place, and bankruptcies may have grown to a national scandal. I hope that we avoid this, but I for one cannot simply stand by and let that happen unchallenged or by default. I realise that it goes against what some have been asking for, but what is better: to know that you are innocent but that your home remains unsalable and you risk being put in an impossible financial position or rendered homeless, or to know that there is at least some means of funding the remediation so that, in any event, at least some benefit is salvaged out of this debacle?
I know that it also goes against the grain of government to interfere with private legal arrangements and liabilities, but the circumstances are truly exceptional, and the scope of the works is relatively specific. The alternative is a high level of sector-wide economic damage and individual financial destruction.
I know that the Minister is not minded to accept any of the arguments that I have put forward, or my solutions. I make it clear that I do not intend to press this Motion. It is my wish to get further explanations from the Minister. My questions are these. If not this amendment and scheme, then what? If not in this Bill, which triggers it, or even in the building safety Bill, then how? If not now, with the ill-effects so apparent and very likely worse to come, when? Further, if not by government, by whom and by which agency?
If, as I suggest, the objection to broadening things comes from HM Treasury, I ask whether the Government have considered the political and economic enormity of the outcomes if this problem is not addressed now. To that end, could the House be advised what impact assessment has been made of the wholesale value of write-offs and the risk of sectoral market collapse? Lastly, if the Minister feels my concerns are misplaced and things are not as bad as I have suggested they might be, surely then the risk of exposure for the taxpayer is of itself a stopgap, a confidence-building measure, rather than a serious run on the Exchequer.
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
My Lords, I draw the attention of the House to my relevant interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and a member of Kirklees Council.
This has so far been a very good debate, with the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, using his expertise to detail the problems and suggest solutions to them since, as he says, they have yet to be resolved and need to be resolved, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans with his passionate exposé of the real difficulties facing individuals in this position.
We know that a property purchase is the largest single financial commitment that the majority of us ever make, yet the guarantees, the warranties and even buildings insurance for leaseholders fail to provide anything approaching adequate provision for those who find themselves living in a home where building regulations have been openly and plainly breached. Those living through this construction crisis and cladding scandal exposed by the awful tragedy of Grenfell are left with nowhere to find redress for the inexcusable failings of the construction companies.
That is in stark contrast to manufacturers of, for example, cars and white goods; where faults are discovered, even where the goods are out of warranty, the manufacturers call them in and make the repairs at their expense. What a difference with the construction industry, where only some of those involved have made any provision for remediation works—the bare minimum that they feel they can get away with. The total estimated cost of remediation so far is £16 billion. The Government are expecting construction companies to pay £200 million a year towards the remediation costs. With the government-funded scheme, that leaves a full £9 billion to fall on those who, throughout, are the innocent victims.
The purpose of the amendments in my name and that of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans is to extend the principle already agreed by the Government: that this serious problem can be successfully fixed only with up-front funding from the Government that can then be recouped from developers, construction firms and manufacturers.
Throughout this debate I have sought to draw the attention of the House to the real and serious consequences for the individual leaseholders and tenants. Take Alison, who has recently had a bill for £28,000. That is just her share of the costs of putting right the construction errors in her block. It is not for cladding removal; the other construction failings are not covered by the scheme that the Government have introduced, but they still have to be remedied. How is that bill to be paid? She carefully budgeted for the costs of her mortgage and the service charges but has no means of raising the finance needed. Where on earth can she turn to save her home?
Another flat owner has written to me, as they apparently have to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, about the further consequences of the scandal. They told me about their buildings insurance premium, and it is so shocking that it is worth sharing again. The insurance premium for their block was just £11,963 last year but that has rocketed to £242,400. How on earth can people living in that block of flats have budgeted for that sort of exponential rise in their insurance premiums? Further, how on earth can they have budgeted or indeed find any finance to pay the bill, which they expect within a week, of £6,000 for each and every one of them without the Government doing what Governments can and should do, which is to protect individuals from situations where they are the innocent victims?
As a consequence of the complete lack of effective government action, bankruptcy has been the only route out of this scandal for many already, while others are on the brink of choosing that as the only option left. Yet these are the very people who have done everything right and nothing wrong. Some are even those who have been supported by the Government through the Help to Buy offer. What are the options after bankruptcy, when everything that you have worked for has been taken away? For those without dependants, the situation is very difficult. They become homeless through no fault of their own. It cannot be right that the Government are allowing this to happen.
I do not envy the Minister his task today as he seeks to defend the indefensible. I feel sure that he will point to the building safety Bill as the cure-all for the failings of the construction sector, but that Bill has yet to start its deliberations so its potential remedies will come far too late for those caught up in this crisis.
The Minister has argued that the Fire Safety Bill will fall if agreement is not reached. He argues for the need to act, but he fails to say at what cost and indeed at whose cost. I thank him for reminding me of my words at Second Reading but he has been a bit selective. I have always said throughout the passage of the Bill that leaseholders must not be asked to pay. Yes, across the House we support the Bill, but equally its consequences need to be thought through as well. The Government constantly state that they are helping leaseholders; indeed the Minister has repeated that today, but he failed then to say that that is unfortunately at a minimal level and the extent of the help is not adequate.
I have asked the cladding groups whether they would suffer if the Bill fell. Their view was unanimous. They concluded that they would be no worse off if it fell and they say that if it does not pass, to some extent it provides them with precious time to get the issue properly addressed.
Yesterday, the Government announced that they would change the law to refund investors in the London Capital & Finance mini-bond scheme. The Government have accepted that the FCA failed to regulate the firm properly. The similarities with this construction scandal are many. Innocent victims are set to lose out due to the failure of regulatory control. However, in the case of the cladding scandal, innocent victims are set to lose everything they own and have worked hard for. That is not right.
The amendment in my name seeks to put right this awful wrong and to establish the rollcall of statistics of bankruptcy, homelessness, mental ill-health and worse, of relationships broken and careers lost. Hundreds of thousands of individuals and families are watching and waiting for the decision of this House. They are willing us on to help find a fair and just solution to a problem that is not in any way of their making. Yet they are the ones who are being asked to pay the price.
If the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans wishes to divide the House, the Liberal Democrat Benches will fully support him. If, however, he chooses not to do so, then I will wish to test the opinion of the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
My Lords, the following Members in the Chamber have indicated that they wish to speak: the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, the noble Lord, Lord Newby, the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, and the noble Lords, Lord Adonis and Lord Cormack. I will call them in that order. First, I call the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is with some reluctance, especially at this late stage of the Bill, that I have decided to speak in support of these amendments. I do not want unnecessarily to delay legislation that aims to make homes safer and I am very sensitive about the dangers of undemocratic overreach and defying an elected Chamber. However, I speak because there is an urgent risk that rather than this well-intentioned, important Bill being remembered as a law that will save lives by tackling the fire safety defects at the heart of the Grenfell tragedy, instead, if passed unamended, it will become known as the Bill that ruins lives and makes tens of thousands bankrupt and homeless, their homes transformed from places of safety to sites of anxiety, stress and penury.
I have not spoken on the Bill previously but have followed the debates carefully. I have heard eloquent, passionate, evidence-based and constructive interventions from noble Lords on all sides of the House patiently explaining to the Government how the Bill, unintentionally no doubt, has weaponised fire safety measures and targeted not developers, freeholders, cladding manufacturers or builders but the most blameless constituents in all this—leaseholding home owners. They will pay horrendous, mind-boggling amounts of money to foot remediation costs to cover defects in order to make their homes safe when they have purchased those flats in good faith.
I assumed that the Government were listening and that they understood, after all this—Ministers here and elsewhere have given lots of public assurances—that leaseholders would not become the fall guys. I believed them. I was pleased to welcome the £5 billion long-term loan scheme and the £50-a-month cap on repayments. That reassured me. But I am speaking today in desperation because I am utterly shocked to discover that this government scheme is not yet operational and that no date is available for when it will be. Yet, at the very moment that the Bill comes into force, if unamended, leaseholders will be landed with even more astronomical bills and demands to pay within days or weeks. That is on top of the immiseration already occurring, caused by ensuing costs.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I begin by declaring my interest as a leaseholder in a block of flats that faces major fire and remediation works.
When we last debated this Bill, I teased the Minister by suggesting that he was behaving like Sir Humphrey in the TV series “Yes, Minister”, by coming up with a series of bureaucratic reasons for not taking any action. After the debate, I was a bit worried that I might have been a bit unfair to him, so I reread his speech just to make sure. I fear that, if anything, I had underestimated the extent to which the Government were hiding behind stock bureaucratic arguments for not doing what they know is required to clear up the scandal. He has repeated some of those arguments today.
Last time around, the Minister, as he has today, accepted that something more was needed. Last time he said that it was
“unacceptable for leaseholders to have to worry about the cost of fixing historic building safety defects.”
He also acknowledged that the Government believed that
“building owners and industry should make buildings safe without passing on costs to leaseholders.”
So far, so good. But when it came to actually dealing with removing that worry, in his response to the amendments from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and my noble friend Lady Pinnock, at great length and somewhat repetitiously he explained why the Government had no plans to fix the problem.
The reasons were as follows. First, the Minister said,
“it would be impractical and confusing to include remediation measures in the Bill.”
Well, it would not be confusing if they were clear. Secondly, he said that it was too soon to include comprehensive measures in the Bill. He said that it was
“important to ensure that the practical implications of any legislation are properly worked through, rather than being rushed”.
Well, we would not want the Government to rush to solve the problems of people who are being forced into bankruptcy today, would we?
Thirdly, the Minister said that the amendment was “too narrow” and did not
“take into account remedial works that arise outside the fire risk assessment process”.
He said that the amendment would go beyond “focusing on service charges”.
Fourthly, the Minister said that the amendment was not detailed enough
“and would require extensive drafting of primary legislation”.
It is not that this Government or any other Government fail to know how to draft extensively—look at the length of the statute book. Fifthly, he said that it would delay the implementation of the Bill, which would be highly regrettable. The Minister has spoken at great length about the costs of delay today but, as my noble friend Lady Pinnock pointed out, it would be highly regrettable to the Government but not to people who are going bankrupt, because this Bill does nothing for them.
Sixthly, the Minister said that loose drafting would lead to litigation. How terrible. Seventhly, he said
“the amendments do not reflect the complexity involved in apportioning liability for remedial defects.”—[Official Report, 17/3/21; cols. 323-26.]
Perhaps the amendments did not but, in my experience, owners of blocks of flats are pretty good when it comes to apportioning liability for costs, because we somehow seem to get that job done every year when we get our service charges. Finally, he said that it would be “self-defeating” as landlords could decide simply to walk away.
Sir Humphrey would have been very proud of the Minister’s performance, but leaseholders listening to his arguments would have realised that they amounted to one depressing fact: the Government were not prepared to fashion a legislative response which dealt with their legitimate concerns. In effect, they were simply saying that they would like to resolve the matter but it was too difficult. There was no willingness on the part of the Minister to commission civil servants to do the work necessary to find a workable solution. Some three and three-quarter years after Grenfell, the Government are completely failing to relieve leaseholders of their concerns and failing to find a way in which to require building owners and contractors to make buildings safe without passing on the costs.
The amendments before us today are a further attempt to move the Government towards meeting what they say are their desired outcomes. They have shown no will to do so of their own volition and it therefore falls to your Lordships’ House to insist again that they do the right and decent thing.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the National Housing Federation, the representative body of housing associations in England. The fact that these issues are before the House again demonstrates the enormous concern that blameless leaseholders should be protected from suffering the costs of those building safety remediation works that have come to light since the tragic fire at Grenfell Tower almost four years ago. Like others, I pay tribute to the commitment and tenacity of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for keeping the Government’s feet to the fire.
Housing associations have worked tirelessly since 2017 to uncover and put right the urgent building safety issues with which since the Grenfell tragedy we are now all too familiar. The safety of their residents is an absolute and immovable priority for the housing association sector. They are also acutely aware of the stress and heartache that leaseholders have experienced and have pursued every avenue available to them to ensure that those responsible, the developers of these buildings, pay for their mistakes. The funds that the Government have already made available for building safety works have a very important part to play in tackling this crisis, but they are by no means a complete solution. It is just not acceptable that under the established scheme some costs will still fall to leaseholders.
I have said before, in early discussions on the Bill, and I stress again today, that social housing providers cannot access this funding for remedial works on properties where tenants live. The funding applies only to leaseholders. That means quite simply that these charitable organisations, which do not make a profit and are set up with the primary purpose of housing people on lower incomes, are facing an enormous bill to set right errors not of their own making—a bill that, at a modest estimate, will exceed £10 billion.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans will have heard the strong support across the House for his amendment. He said at the beginning of his remarks that he intended to press the matter, and I would strongly encourage him to do so. It looks to me as if he will have a commanding majority across the House.
The Minister’s speech was very odd. Indeed, it was so odd that I cannot think that he actually wrote his own speech. It must have been written by some political adviser in his department, who just put together a set of remarks that he thought would basically tell the House of Lords to get lost. That was the gravamen of his argument, presumably hoping that, the third time around, we would not press this—indeed, that we would not even get into the arguments.
The Minister said—I noted it down carefully—that the proposal in the amendment in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans was “inappropriate and unworkable”. I was waiting for him to describe to the House why it was inappropriate and unworkable, but he did not. He said that he would not comment in detail at the beginning, but would do so at the end. That is not much use to us, because the debate takes place before his closing remarks, not afterwards, and we have no means of replying to them. That argument is clearly of no account, unless the Minister has such compelling arguments against the right reverend Prelate that, on hearing them, we will be completely silenced.
When we read the amendment, it is impossible to see how it could be described as inappropriate and unworkable. The right reverend Prelate proposes, first, that the costs may not be passed on to leaseholders or tenants—an argument in its absolute state, which the Minister has objected to, and I understand his arguments. However, the crucial part of the amendment is subsection (2) of the proposed new clause:
“This section has effect only until a statutory scheme is in operation which ensures that leaseholders and tenants of dwellings do not have to pay for remedial work attributable to the provisions of this Act.”
What is inappropriate and unworkable about that? The right reverend Prelate proposes simply that the Government’s own scheme, which one assumes will not be inappropriate or unworkable, must be before Parliament and subject to consideration before people are faced with costs—unless I have missed something in the arguments. The right reverend Prelate is nodding in agreement, and the Minister has not said anything to the contrary.
By definition, that cannot be inappropriate and unworkable, because we are talking about the Government’s own scheme. All that the right reverend Prelate seeks to do, which it is absolutely within the role of a revising Chamber to insist on, is that leaseholders should not be subject to these costs, which could bankrupt them and cause them enormous distress, being simply unmanageable, until there is a scheme. The scheme must have been presented and agreed before they face these costs.
We have heard harrowing stories from people with individual and personal cases at stake, but also, as the right reverend Prelate so rightly says, there are potentially—we are not quite sure what the numbers are—hundreds of thousands of people affected. What impact will that have? It is not unreasonable for this House to insist that before leaseholders are faced with those costs, we must know what the scheme is and it has been subject to proper consideration.
What makes it all even odder is that the Government themselves say that that is their intention. When the matter last came before the House of Commons, the Minister responsible, Christopher Pincher, said:
“We have been working hard to ensure that those with broader shoulders and those that should pay do pay.”
That is precisely the principle we are all seeking to establish. He continued:
“That is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced at the Budget that there will be a levy on tall buildings and a tax on the sector. We do not want to absolve the industry of its responsibility. We are finalising how the levy will be calculated and the Treasury is leading on the development of the tax. Of course we want to ensure that it works effectively, and that small and medium-sized developers are not unfairly disadvantaged. We want to get it right and we want to get it done as quickly as we can … We will bring forward as soon as we possibly can the workings of the financial support scheme that we announced at the Budget that will ensure that leaseholders in buildings below 18 metres pay no more than £50 a month.”—[Official Report, Commons, 22/3/21; col. 707.]
Those commitments and statements by the Minister are completely consistent with the proposal of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, which simply says that the scheme must be ready, approved and operable before leaseholders pay any costs. The Minister’s substantive argument—that the right reverend Prelate’s proposal is inappropriate and unworkable—is clearly nonsensical and wrong.
The Minister’s other argument was that we were somehow delaying matters. The House of Commons last debated this issue on Monday 22 March. The date today is 20 April, a month later. The reason for the delay in considering this Bill has nothing to do with your Lordships, nothing to do with the leaseholders, nothing to do with the right reverend Prelate, and everything to do with the Government.
Indeed, on the same day as the House of Commons considered our amendments to the Fire Safety Bill, they also considered our amendments to the Trade Bill. Those of your Lordships who multitask—some of us do more than one Bill at a time—will know that the amendments to the Trade Bill were dealt with in your Lordships’ House within a matter of days. It was, I think, three or four days later, because it was still the twenty-something of March when we dealt with them. The reason why we have not considered this matter until 20 April, very close to the end of the Session, has nothing whatever to do with your Lordships, and everything to do with the Government.
We still have time between now and the end of the Session. As the right reverend Prelate so rightly said, if the Prime Minister can spring into such dramatic action in response to developments in the Football League, he and the Government can certainly get their act together to consider and put forward proper proposals in respect of a scheme. Much more pertinently, if they say that the full resources of the Government, drafting and all that, are not available, because the parliamentary draftsmen are on holiday or whatever and so cannot do it—the noble Lord, Lord Newby, could read out more “Yes Minister” excerpts on this—all he needs to do is to accept the amendment in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans. That is what we are urging him to do. It would give him the time to do it, because its key provision is that leaseholders will not be faced with these charges until the statutory scheme is in operation, so he will have the time that he needs.
However, it is not just that the reason for the delay is the Government and not this House; we are dealing with a situation that is nearly four years old. It is not as if Grenfell happened a few months ago, we are still trying to estimate what the impacts were, and we are being rushed into legislation and the design of a scheme. It has been four years, and there is a whole public inquiry, the first stage of which has already reported. Again, the reason for the delay in this respect has nothing to do with the leaseholders, nothing to do with this House and everything to do with the Government.
What was the special adviser who wrote the Minister’s speech actually seeking to do? I think it is pretty clear, because most of us here are seasoned politicians. They were seeking to see that the Fire Safety Bill becomes law before the impact on the leaseholders is fully known. We need to get to the heart of what is happening here. Obviously, in response to the urgent and compelling safety crisis that we face, there had to be changes in the safety regulations. More precisely, we had to see that the existing safety regulations were actually enforced. That is what we are really talking about as the fundamental point of principle here.
The Government do not want leaseholders, who may face large bills of potentially tens of thousands of pounds and who in many cases may not be covered by the schemes, which are only in outline at the moment in their descriptions, to be faced with those costs or any knowledge of what they might be before the Bill becomes law. However, that is all the more reason why Parliament should not be prepared to play the Government’s game, because this is not a political game or a script of “Yes Minister”; these are the lives of hundreds of thousands of people who face bills of tens of thousands of pounds. It is perfectly reasonable that this House and the House of Commons should at least know what the schemes are, in respect of which people are going to have to pay these sums, and should have given their assent to them before they become law.
The Minister said that the right reverend Prelate’s proposal was inappropriate and unworkable. There is nothing inappropriate and unworkable whatever about ensuring that a statutory scheme must be in operation before leaseholders face bills that could, as I say, run into tens of thousands of pounds. The only reason for the delay in the past and now is because of the Government. This could all be sorted out in the next few days, before the end of this Session, if there is a will to move.
For that reason, I strongly urge the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, on behalf of hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens who have a right to expect fair play from Parliament, to press this amendment to a vote.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, having heard so much this afternoon, I do not think that I really wish to add to the powerful arguments that have been advanced.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, first, I draw the attention of the House to my relevant interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association, a non-executive director of MHS Homes Ltd and chair of the Heart of Medway Housing Association.
It is most disappointing that we are back here again, because the Government have neither listened to nor recognised the plight of the people trapped in their homes. For me, that is extremely disappointing. I have spoken to a number of the innocent victims over recent weeks. Think of the stress, worry, concern, costs and lives on hold. For many, there is no end in sight. It is not good enough, and we must ask the other place to think again on this issue. We must stand with the innocent victims, the leaseholders and the tenants. It is a disgraceful, monumental scandal, and the Government cannot be let off the hook today. We hear lots from the Government about levelling up; it is one of their new phrases that we have heard over the last year. What about some levelling up for the victims of the cladding scandal? That is what we need to hear today.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, it has been an interesting debate, to put it mildly. I did not think we would be invoking the spirit of the European Super League quite so much, but I have to say I stand with noble Lords in being utterly opposed to the proposals, including from the club that I support.
The idea that we are unleashing a torrent of issues for leaseholders as a result of the Fire Safety Bill—one of the points the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, made—is overstated. That is not going to happen. We recognise that building owners will have to take a proportionate, risk-based approach that takes into account the true possibility of risk to life in properties. Life risk is mercifully low, as I said in my opening remarks.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Newby, that the solution has been outlined by the Government. Noble Lords can query the scope, but the solution will always involve three basic elements: a level of grant funding—we have had the ACM fund of some £600 million and the building safety fund of £1 billion; some kind of financing scheme that provides a loan facility to pay for these works; and taxation or levies. The Government are introducing all three elements, and that is ultimately the only solution that can be offered. I point out to the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, that the solution in all those areas does not need to be statutory—in fact, in order to be timely, it cannot be statutory. The grant funding exists, and we will be publishing further details of the financing scheme very shortly. The Treasury’s lead is needed on taxation and levies, as the noble Lord will know.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, it would be nice to put more money on the table, but over £5 billion, as I am sure she recognises, is a considerable sum. Leasehold properties in those buildings are protected. We know that a number of housing associations are applying to the building safety fund. I recognise that we could go further and protect the full remediation costs of those buildings, but it is nevertheless the case that many housing associations are applying for funds for the removal of unsafe cladding. In addition, a very generous affordable housing programme of some £12.5 billion has been announced, which housing associations can access.
By way of clarification to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, the building safety fund does exist and the money is being accessed. It is clear that the additional money the Government have announced will be added to that fund. We are in danger of running out of money, frankly, in a matter of months, without the additional amounts committed by the Government. The other things I mentioned will happen, but none of them requires statute to implement, so it is simply not the case that a statutory solution is the only way forward.
I want to reiterate why these amendments, which I believe are unworkable and impractical, should be rejected.. I do not have the benefit of political advisers as a Lords Minister. I am always happy with extra help in drafting my speeches, but I do not have a special adviser helping me in this regard. I do not think the amendments deliver the solution; all they do is put the legislation at risk. We have had the Easter Recess, which is one of the reasons we are now short of time.
As noble Lords have heard before now, it is impractical and confusing to amend the fire safety order to include this issue. The main aim of the fire safety order is to ensure public safety by reducing the risk to life from fire. This is done through responsible persons complying with their duties and regularly reviewing their fire risk assessment to identify and put in place appropriate fire precautions. These amendments do not include measures that provide public safety or set out how the responsible person should reduce the risk to harm from fire. Instead, they cover the relationship, including financial obligations and liabilities, between freeholder and leaseholder. These matters do not sit naturally with the fire safety order, as some noble Lords have admitted.
In his amendment, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, wants to add further protections to leaseholders by insisting that building owners seek government support through our grant or financing schemes before passing costs on to leaseholders. Noble Lords will note that a similar provision already exists in our draft Building Safety Bill in Clause 89(17P), which places obligations on the landlord to deduct from leaseholder charges any funding received. We are adding to this clause with the purpose of ensuring that building owners must explore other cost-recovery mechanisms before passing costs on to leaseholders.
In addition to this proposed legislative protection, the existing building safety fund application process already requires building owners to demonstrate that they have already explored other cost-recovery avenues as a condition of government funding. Including this sort of provision in the Building Safety Bill removes a clear practical difficulty in this clause. By extending the requirement to explore alternative funding sources before approaching leaseholders to all building safety risks, leaseholders will now have to work out which costs are directly attributable to the provisions of the fire safety order and which are not. In the interim, building owners should already be accessing all the government support available to remediate unsafe cladding, and we are supporting them through this process.
I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans for his engagement over the last few weeks, but I am afraid that his amendment will not work either. It would orphan liability. We have looking to assign liability to freeholders or orphan liability of works until such times as a statutory scheme is in place that pays for the work directly attributable to this Bill. I have already talked about the difficulties of defining which works might be directly attributable to the Fire Safety Bill provisions and which might not.
Some of the works that may be required will be low cost, where anyone would reasonably expect leaseholders to pay. Does the right reverend Prelate really want to stop the passing on of relatively minor costs, such as for a new smoke alarm? The amendment does not differentiate between the costs of the work which could lead to delays in important minor works. He is talking about stopping something even as minor as putting in a smoke alarm as a consequence of the amendment. No taxpayer scheme for such minor works would be forthcoming, and we would reach an entirely avoidable impasse.
The amendment does not take into account safety defects that are identified outside the fire safety risk process—for example, necessary works brought into scope as a result of another incident. In such cases, this will not prevent costs being passed on, and the amendment will not, therefore, achieve what the right reverend Prelate intends. Since this amendment is not sufficiently detailed and will require extensive drafting of primary legislation, it would continue to delay the implementation of the Fire Safety Bill and the important reforms that it intends to carry out.
We also recognise that there could be protracted legal action from building owners to claim for costs they feel they are entitled to pursue from leaseholders. Stating in legislation what the landlord can and cannot recover from the leaseholders, and when, could contradict the provisions set out in the contractual terms of a lease. This would affect the Government and, to that extent, taxpayers. The amendment should ultimately be self-defeating as the pace and progress of all fire safety works would be stalled, leaving leaseholders still in an invidious position.
I must admit that I had a strong sense of déjà vu when reading the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. The House will remember that an almost identical amendment was laid during the previous stage of this Bill and rejected by the Commons. As with the previous amendment, it would orphan liability and leave leaseholders no better off, with no clear route for buildings to be remediated, without a clear cost recovery mechanism. Noble Lords will also remember that the scope of this amendment is extremely broad; it is applicable to not just external walls but all and every defect regardless of whether it has been caused by wear and tear. This is neither proportionate nor appropriate. It is certainly not the best use of taxpayers’ money.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
I have received a single request to speak after the Minister. I call the noble Lord, Lord Adonis.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, we are talking about three different amendments; I am focusing on that from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans. In so far as I could tell, the detail of the Minister’s objection to the right reverend Prelate’s amendment was that further delay could be caused by uncertainty over the attribution of costs and that he objected to the amendment’s requirement that the scheme be statutory. Further delay depends on how long it takes the Government to come forward with their scheme; they are in complete control of the timescale. On the statutory scheme, to foster peace and good will between the right reverend Prelate and the Government, I suggest that “statutory” be replaced by “government” scheme—which need not necessarily be statutory, for the reasons the Minister gave. Would he be prepared to entertain this?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
I am very new to this place but, as I have tried to highlight, I do not believe that the solution in large part involves statute. The noble Lord is asking for a further commitment that is really about putting more government money up front to pay for the significant costs faced by leaseholders. It would not be helpful to amend the amendment by removing that word, because I do not think we could accept the amendment in any way whatever. We have set out that we want to focus on the remediation of unsafe cladding because cladding on the outside of buildings is the major fire accelerant. That is what we will focus on and we are putting forward over £5 billion to do precisely that—a significant, globally unprecedented amount. I do not think amending that one word moves us any further forward.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I am hugely grateful for the extraordinary range of speeches made today. I acknowledge what Her Majesty’s Government have done; I take the point that this is unprecedented and a major contribution towards trying to sort out this very difficult problem. The Minister knows that I have said on many occasions that I am terribly naive about all this. I was hoping Her Majesty’s Government would help solve it because I am just an amateur paddling around in the shallows. I am hugely grateful to people such as the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, who is a real expert in this area.
I still believe that my amendment is a practical, helpful and just way forward which is in the spirit of what Her Majesty’s Government want and have committed to. I was hugely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, for quoting the Minister in the other place. I am still sufficiently positive—noble Lords will probably say naive—about our political system to believe that this amendment could well commend itself to people in the other place when they see that it is within the spirit of what the Government want to do. I hope that it will be taken back to the other place and considered there, or that the Government will wish to introduce something like it, to help us move this forward. I would like us to get this on to the statute book as quickly as possible but, in the light of what I have heard, with reluctance I feel I have no other choice but to divide the House on this Motion.
Lord Greenhalgh
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 4D, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 4G.
Lord Greenhalgh
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 4E, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 4H.
Covid-19: Update
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I thank the Minister for the Statement made in the Commons yesterday. I pay tribute again from these Benches for the amazing work of all the NHS staff and volunteers in delivering the vaccine to so many millions of people. However, as the chief medical and scientific advisers have repeated many times in recent weeks, the virus is still among us, creating new strains and threatening our recovery in the UK. It is therefore vital that the Government continue as we emerge from this lockdown to be led by data, not dates.
It is clearly right to add India to the red list. In the UK we have deep ties and bonds with India of course, but it was the correct thing to do in the circumstances and it is also right that the Prime Minister should postpone his visit. Pakistan and Bangladesh, both of which have lower rates than India, have been on the list since 9 April so I wonder why it took so long to add India.
Can the Minister update the House on the presence of all three new variants identified—the Indian, Brazilian and South African—and their presence and spread in the UK? Indeed, can he update the House about the global co-ordination of surveillance of the new variants?
With regard to protecting our borders, this week Hong Kong identified 47 Covid cases on a single flight from Delhi. Before the Friday deadline there will be hundreds of people arriving on flights from India. Is this not very risky?
Even with high levels of vaccination across the population, there will be significant groups who are not vaccinated—children, for example—so the virus will be endemic. As the Chief Medical Officer has recently confirmed, papers from SAGE model a third wave this summer. How do we avoid that?
The poorest and lowest paid in the most insecure jobs do not isolate as they should because they cannot afford to do so. From these Benches we have pointed out time and again that one way to ensure self-isolation—and therefore help the Government tackle this—would be to pay higher sick pay and expand its scope. Will this happen?
There is no mention in the Statement of vaccine passports. Does the Minister anticipate that they will soon be needed for football games and concerts?
I regret that we need to turn to the media stories about lobbying and the revelations in the Sunday Times regarding the former Prime Minister acting on behalf of Greensill and the payday financing scheme. As my right honourable friend Jon Ashworth said in the Commons yesterday:
“This was not an act of altruism to staff in a pandemic but an investment plan to package up loans to sell to investors, with the former Prime Minister, not nurses, in line for a payday windfall. Cameron wrote in one of his emails: ‘As you can imagine, Matt Hancock’ is ‘extremely positive about this innovative offer.’”—[Official Report, Commons, 19/4/21; col. 659.]
What was being sought was a partnership with NHS Shared Business Services, which is jointly owned by the department, to access the personal and financial data of thousands of NHS staff for their electronic records for commercial gain. I expect the move would next be to the social care sector. We know that at least 30 trusts may have spent valuable time considering the adoption of this untested payday lending scheme as a result of the lobbying by Mr Cameron. Can the Minister ensure that publication of all the text messages, emails and correspondence with David Cameron will happen? Can the Minister tell the House how many NHS leaders and officials Mr Cameron and Mr Greensill lobbied and met? How many NHS trusts in total were approached about this expensive—and, indeed, unneeded —scheme? Even today, we see further allegations of contracts being granted without proper scrutiny and governance, following the Secretary of State’s own links with Topwood. Questions about conflicts of interest are inevitable.
Apart from the issue about pay levels in the NHS which might necessitate such a scheme, can the Minister accept that NHS staff deserve a pay rise and support, not payday loan apps forced on the NHS by speculators trying to make money out of the pandemic? What is his view of this? Does he appreciate that honesty, probity and transparency are directly linked to people’s acceptance of and adherence to the rules we have all obeyed for many months to beat this pandemic?
Last year, a former Conservative chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Feldman—who was running a lobbying firm with healthcare clients—acted as an unpaid adviser to the Minister himself. When I was a Minister I was told that one must not only be scrupulous and transparent in one’s dealings but that one should not do anything that could be misunderstood or misinterpreted.
I hope the Minister will not just get angry as he has in the past and say it is all not true and how hard everyone is working to get the pandemic under control—everyone knows how hard he and the public servants are working—as he will be missing the point. The point is about the reputation and standing of government, democracy and accountability. Does he believe it would be a good thing for the Government to reflect on the Nolan principles of public life, particularly with regard to recent procurement processes, and the lessons that might be learnt?
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I add my tributes from these Benches to all those who continue to work well above and beyond the call of duty in all areas to do with managing the Covid pandemic. This includes the vaccination teams, the invisible workers—the scientists working in labs and all those who we do not see on a daily basis—as well as our overtired doctors, nurses and other clinical healthcare workers, and those in social care who are still taking remarkable precautions.
It is worth noting despite the reduction in cases, hospital cases and deaths that daily cases are still double the level that they were at the lifting of lockdown 1, so it is good that the Government are not speeding things up. We need to continue to move carefully and steadily, as later parts of the Statement talking about the India and South African variants give cause for some concern. It is also reassuring to see that uptake of the vaccine is excellent. However, the Statement is silent on when all adults will have been offered the second vaccine. That is important because, as scientists constantly remind us, two doses are needed. Focusing only on the first vaccine is giving the vast majority of the public overconfidence about protection. If people want to go on holiday, one dose of the vaccine will not be enough, whether that holiday is in the UK or abroad.
That leads also to those who are immune-suppressed and to those under 18, because until all are safe, none are safe. Can the Minister say if there is any news on the OCTAVE clinical trials on the ability of those who are immune-suppressed to make and retain antibodies? Those formerly shielding—including me—still need to avoid mixing with people. They are still waiting for news to see if they can relax, even after two doses of the vaccine.
What is the news for children? I understood that the trials on over-12s had been halted following the blood clot issue with the AstraZeneca vaccine. Is that still the case? What are the long-term plans to ensure that our under-12s and, indeed, our under-18s are safe? The Statement says that:
“The vaccine is our way out of this pandemic”.
Not on its own, it is not. We must continue to test, trace and isolate to keep people safe. The Government are to be applauded for the large number of lateral flow tests because they are useful, but they are not as effective as PCR tests for really tracking the virus.
Had I not been unable to do so, I would have loved to have been at Wembley on Sunday supporting my team, which, sadly, lost to Leicester. I would have been delighted to have been part of a testing arrangement to see what happens, but other fans have said that they were only asked to be tested in advance and that there is no testing afterwards. Is that correct? In other words, how detailed is this testing for moving back into normal life going to be?
I am a member of the All-Party Group on Coronavirus, and this morning we heard from scientists who are bemused that immediate contacts of those who test positive are still not routinely PCR tested, which all the countries with a truly effective test and trace system operate. That is vital with the high percentage of people with Covid still having no symptoms, so they would believe that there is no reason for them to be tested, and it is particularly important with the information about the spread of the variants from South Africa and India.
I have family who live in Wandsworth. This time last week, as the announcement about mass testing across Lambeth and Wandsworth was made, we were told that everyone in those areas would be publicly informed. Three days later, not only had my son heard nothing, but he walked past a newly set up testing site a few hundred metres from his house, went in, and discovered that he did need to be tested. So, he and my daughter-in-law had their tests. It transpires that the only notification from Wandsworth Council before the weekend was a tweet, with none of the mechanisms used elsewhere such as texts via GPs, posters up in the street, word of mouth, or even leaflets. How on earth can that be real surge testing if only a small percentage of the population see a handful of tweets?
On the India variant, scientists also told the APPG this morning that the estimated figure of 103 cases was considerably lower than the likely number of cases circulating because only 10% to 15% of positive lateral-flow swabs are sent on to laboratories where they are scanned for variants. This might mean that the actual number is 10 to 20 times the official estimate. This brings us full circle, back to test, trace and isolate. Even with vaccines, it is vital to have an effective test, trace and isolate system to keep people safe. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, outlined, adding India to the red list but giving people three-and-a-half days’ notice before implementing it, means that a large number of cases are likely to slip into the country. Even if they are caught through positive testing, we are unlikely to have a real sense of the actual number of cases.
This follows on from the concern that we from these Benches have had about successful self-isolation and quarantining for a year. The APPG heard evidence this morning that demonstrated that arrangements at our borders, particularly in airports, are not Covid safe, either for travellers or staff, and they risk becoming breeding grounds. This now needs to include effectively separately passengers who arrive from red-list countries from those who arrive from others, and ensuring that all quarantine rules are observed. We heard evidence that people were leaving their quarantine hotels early, and that others, quarantining at home because they did not come from red-list countries, were being forced to use public transport to get to testing centres for their day eight tests. Worse, border staff are discovering around 100 fake Covid test certificates daily, and there are probably many more. If that does not signify a real worrying standard for the possibility of vaccine passports, I do not know what does. When will a proper test, trace and isolate system be put in place that includes immediate contacts and more lateral-flow tests being tested for variants, along with vital, proper, paid arrangements for self-isolation, including quarantining and proper separation in the transport arrangements for those coming from abroad?
Finally, I will spend just one minute on Greensill. It is not just Greensill: we need desperately to see full publication of all meetings and correspondence—informal and formal—that Ministers have had regarding all contracts, whether it is payday loans, PPE or testing arrangements. This also includes the new quarantining partners; the Health Secretary said on Monday that two have already been sacked, having been in place only for a short time. It is vital that the smell-test on all these contracts is evident and sure.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, I am enormously grateful to both the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Thornton, for such thoughtful questions. I totally and utterly endorse both with regard to their massive thanks to NHS staff, to the vaccinators and, in particular, I echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, who thanked the invisible workers. I am acutely and particularly aware of the lab technicians, many of whom have worked unbelievably hard in difficult circumstances, often located far from their homes, supporting our laboratories up and down the country. There are many other categories of invisible workers in our healthcare system and they deserve our huge thanks.
I am as concerned as the noble Baronesses about the threat of variants of concern. It is an absolutely frustrating and anxiety-making fact, that we simply do not know a huge amount about what the impact of these variants will be on transmissibility, severity and escapology. We are throwing absolutely everything we have got at this to try to understand the features of this disease. However, it is true that while we can study them in a mathematical or computer-generated model, we get only so far with that. We can study them on the workbench and get a little bit further, we can stick them in a tube with some serum from someone who has had a vaccine, and maybe figure out a bit more, but it is only when we have the real-world data of how the vaccines have worked in real life when put up against the virus that we can accurately conclude what the impact will be. Therefore, only the passage of time will give us the critical data we need to go forward.
In the meantime, we are standing up a huge international effort to try to understand the variants that are emerging around the world. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, asked me about global co-ordination. Britain is absolutely playing its role; it is using its chairmanship of the G7 to full effect. As noble Lords are, I am sure, fully aware, we have a world-leading facility in genomic sequencing. We have made a massive, open-hearted offer to the world to sequence the genomes of any variants of concern, from any country in the world, through the newly launched New Variant Assessment Platform. We are working to set up hubs to develop expertise in that capacity around the world. We are working extremely closely with multi-laterals such as the WHO, with the relevant major trusts such as the Gates and Rockefeller foundations and the Wellcome Trust, and with individual countries, to provide the insight, the fast-turnaround analysis and the assessment of new variants as they turn up.
Within our own country, it is concerning that variants have made landfall, but I reassure noble Lords that we have put in place remarkably diligent efforts to close down any spread of variants of concern when they have occurred, whether they are from India, Brazil or South Africa. It is a fact that the Operation Eagle process, which is supported by local authorities, DPHs, test and trace and by the JBC, has so far—touch wood—proved to be extremely effective at closing down community spread. We have numbers of the variants in the UK but a very large proportion of them are known to be related to travel and they have not yet created clusters of infection of the kind that might cause concern. The MQS—Managed Quarantine Service—has played an absolutely critical role. I pay tribute to the MQS team, who are at this very moment putting in place arrangements for managed quarantine for flights with travellers from India. They have put in place the necessary pre-testing, the hotels and the assessment.
While I hear, loud and clear, the concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, about that process, I reassure her that her list of concerns is quite different from the operational notes that I am given every day. The truth is that it has kept a lid on any spread of VOCs in the UK to date. On Wandsworth, I pay tribute to the enormous civic response to our concerns around the cluster there. I recognise the concerns of the relative of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, in that area, but there has been an absolutely massive news and community-marketing promotion of the home testing, pharmacy testing, MTUs and ATSs in Wandsworth. Very few people indeed cannot have heard of the arrangements that are in place.
With regard to the OCTAVE clinical trials, that is of grave concern to all those who have immunosuppressed circumstances. We are working extremely hard with Birmingham University, with Professor Paul Moss, to understand more about the response of those with immunity issues. It is a frustrating fact that those with pre-existing immunity issues are likely to be the ones who have the lowest and least response to the vaccine. We are trying to understand as best we can how that can be supplemented. As noble Lords may know, we have already invested considerably in new arrangements for therapeutics and antivirals that we believe will support those with immunosuppressed conditions. I would be glad to write to the noble Baroness about our arrangement for vaccines for the under-12s.
If there are any other questions that I have not had time to answer, I would be glad to write to the noble Baronesses with full answers.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, we now come to the 30 minutes for Back-Bench questions. I ask that noble Lords keep their questions as short as they can.
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con) [V]
What plans are being put in place for flu and Covid vaccine booster shots for the winter?
Lord Bethell (Con)
I am extremely grateful for that perceptive question. We are looking, at this very moment, at our arrangements for the autumn. For the flu vaccine, we hope to double down on our hugely successful efforts from last autumn. We hope to build on the experience of the Covid vaccine to ensure that a much wider range of people have the vaccine, so that we can deal with those who might head towards severe illness, and to stop transmission. When it comes to the Covid vaccine, we are beginning to try to understand whether a booster shot will or will not be necessary to address the threat of VOCs. As I said earlier, we are still at a stage where we do not have the full science at our disposal but, if necessary, we will roll out a vaccine booster programme in the autumn.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB) [V]
My Lords, India being placed on the red list will cause real hardship to many UK citizens with close family ties in the subcontinent. Does the Minister agree that, while this has necessitated the cancellation of the Prime Minister’s visit to India, it will also have prevented him bringing back a virulent strain of the virus Modi-us bigotus, which attacks and can seriously harm a country’s entire democratic immune system?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, our thoughts are with the people of India at a time when they are fighting the disease in very difficult circumstances. I acknowledge that, for families in the UK with family and business ties with India, the arrangements under the red list are extremely inconvenient, and we are doing it only because it is absolutely necessary.
The Lord Bishop of London
I am sure the Minister knows that those from deprived communities are more likely to catch Covid-19, be admitted to ITU and to die from the disease. They are also less likely to take up a vaccination. Could the Minister update us on action by the Government to ensure that Covid-19 does not continue to be a disease of poverty?
Lord Bethell (Con)
The right reverend Prelate hits the nail on the head. It is extremely sad, frustrating and hard to acknowledge the fact that those who live in deprivation are often those who are hardest hit by this awful disease. We have worked extremely hard to get the vaccine, and testing and tracing, into those communities and to support them with whatever education and community support we can. But the fact remains that this country has an unequal health outcome for too many families, and it is part of our levelling-up agenda that we try to address that. The obesity strategy is one way in which that we can do that, but there are a great many others that we need to look at.
Lord Sikka (Lab) [V]
My Lords, 4.7 million people in England are waiting for routine operations and procedures. Some 388,000 have been on waiting lists for more than a year. Even with the extra £7 billion a year, it is estimated that it will take five years to clear the backlog. Can I urge the Government to declare an NHS emergency, equivalent to that of Covid-19, provide additional resources to the NHS, and inform the House of the targets they will set for reducing the waiting list?
Lord Bethell (Con)
The noble Lord is right that the backlog is a grave issue, and we are fighting as hard as we can to address it. The big guns of the NHS are moving from Covid to addressing the backlog, but we should not overstate its threat either. Large parts of the NHS remained open all the way through Covid, and I pay tribute to those in the NHS who worked extremely hard to ensure that many elective procedures and much diagnosis continued. We do them and their reputations no favours if we imply that the NHS was in any way doing less than it should have done to work through Covid. But the noble Lord is right; this is a grave issue, and we take it extremely seriously.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, overwhelming evidence now exists that lower-paid people are less likely to take a test, self-isolate or isolate for the full period, due to not being able to afford to do so. What extra support will the Government now put in place to deal with this Achilles heel of the test, trace and isolate system?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, we put in place a considerable amount of support for those on low wages, including the furlough scheme, and a huge amount of economic support. It is true that those on low wages have wage pressure put on their lives, but we have statutory sick pay for those who are sick and out of work, and we have a huge amount of investment in local government and in charities, which also provide support for those who live in deprivation.
Lord Sarfraz (Con) [V]
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend the Minister for just how hard he has worked and for all that his department has achieved over the last year. Will he tell us what plans there are for the development of new vaccines in response to new variants?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, all the major vaccine companies are already looking at tweaking their existing vaccines, or developing new ones, in response to the new variants. AstraZeneca, for instance, has been working on that for some months. It is not clear, at this stage, whether we will have to start again on the vaccine programme or simply arrange new booster shots, or whether the existing vaccines will, in fact, run the full course. It is unbelievably frustrating to be in this hiatus of short knowledge—that is where we are at the moment—but please be reassured that this Government are investing absolutely everything necessary to ensure that vaccines will be available for whatever comes down the track.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
I can confirm what the Minister said about other services in the NHS. The staff at the Macmillan Renton Unit at Hereford County Hospital were working flat out this morning when I went for one of my check-ups. I have two brief questions for the Minister, one of which follows on from what the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, said, in a way. First, there was a reference in the Statement to the flu issue. I understand that our flu jabs have always been made in India, which will be more than occupied producing Covid vaccines for itself and others in the next few months, so where are the UK flu jabs for the forthcoming season later this year coming from? Secondly—if I cannot have an answer now, I would like a letter—who is responsible for maintaining and monitoring the shelf life of the PPE that we have?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I join the noble Lord in commending the people who work at Macmillan and all the other important diagnostic centres that have remained committed to their work throughout Covid under extremely difficult circumstances, delivering hugely important healthcare services. The noble Lord is stretching my knowledge of vaccination with this question, but it is my understanding that most of our flu jabs are grown in eggs in East Anglia and we do not rely on Indian supplies for the flu jab. This may seem like an extraordinary fact, and I doubt it, even as I stand here at the Dispatch Box, but I would be glad to write to him to confirm the point.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the Government’s consultation on whether vaccines should be required for care staff working with older adults. To make this easier, could the Minister say what plans the Government have to ensure that care staff are paid for time spent being vaccinated, particularly if they have to come in when not on shift or have to take time off because of any short-term reaction to the jab? Also, are the Government prepared to support care homes financially to enable staff who cannot have the vaccine for clinical or other specified reasons to be redeployed to non-front-line work?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the vaccine is typically seen as personal medical hygiene. I am not sure if arrangements have been made for people to be paid while they get vaccinated, but I would be glad to write to the noble Baroness to confirm that. She makes an extremely sensible point about redeployment; I do not know the precise details, but would be glad to write to her.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, one of the very few positives to come out of the pandemic is that the spotlight has shone on the superb life sciences sector in this country. For example, 47% of all global genomic sequencing is conducted in the UK. Could my noble friend the Minister elaborate on any future collaboration plans between the Government and the sector and how we intend to continue to grow our world-leading position in this space?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My noble friend is entirely right: life sciences is a huge national strength. It was a quiet industry that people did not speak of much; now it is centre stage. Post Brexit, the role of the MHRA, as one of the world’s leading regulators, is something of which we can be enormously proud as a country. It is also making a lot of businesses think that the UK should very much be the focus of their investment, going forward. BEIS and the DHSC are working together very closely, through the Office for Life Sciences, to ensure that the message is heard loud and clear, around the world, that Britain is the right place to invest.
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister tell me what plans are in place to monitor the work being done to ensure that cities such as Leicester, which was in the longest lockdown ever, do not go backwards now that people are being vaccinated? How will they monitor that? Could my noble friend also tell me what is being done to encourage people into the social care sector? There is an enormous demand for care workers, and yet we do not seem able to fill those gaps.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My noble friend is right: the people of Leicester have done a terrific job at getting the rate down. It was once 571 per 100,000, and on 15 April it was 74 per 100,000. This is a huge achievement, but I am afraid that behind that lie some concerns. Nationally, we are at 26 per 100,000, but 23 local authorities have cases above 50, and Leicester is one of them. In some areas of the country, the virus is proving extremely resilient. That is partly due to the deprivation referred to by the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and partly due to the cultural and practical habits of those involved. We are working really hard to try to address those knotty problems, and I welcome the civic engagement of all who live there.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, last week, the Prime Minister said that the lockdown has been doing
“the bulk of the work in reducing”—
—infections, then Simon Stevens said that
“'Vaccines are successfully reducing hospitalisations and deaths”.
Around the world, lockdowns are not being as successful as one might have imagined, so could my noble friend say whether it is the Government’s opinion that the reduction of deaths and serious cases is down to the lockdown or to the amazing success of vaccinations? Secondly, is what I read true—and it may be completely untrue—that the average age of death from Covid is higher than average life expectancy?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My noble friend is quite wrong if he is seeking to imply that there is any doubt about lockdowns working. Lockdowns work incredibly well because they put space between people. The science behind lockdowns is very simple and incontrovertible. That is the learning of the last year, and those who seek to cast doubt on it, time and again, session after session, do us no favours at all. We are at a moment in the cycle of the disease when the weight is being lifted by the lockdown and by the vaccine—it is somewhere between the two. I cannot call it, and Sir Simon Stevens and the Prime Minister cannot call it—it is somewhere between the two. But we should be in no doubt: if there is a variant of concern that makes landfall in the UK and threatens the success of the vaccine, we will be back in lockdown. We should be extremely careful to avoid that eventuality.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I join the Minister in thanking all those involved in the vaccination programme. I was surprised that the Secretary of State in another place did not mention in his Statement the important topic of Covid passports. It is reported that Michael Gove, who is in charge of the Whitehall study into their use, is visiting Israel and is a big fan of its use of the “green pass” scheme for entry to venues including gyms, swimming pools, restaurants, theatres, cinemas and the like. Putting to one side whether such a system would be discriminatory, can the Minister explain whether it would include, as well as evidence of vaccination, recent proof of a test or of having had Covid recently? Also, does the vaccination, or recovery from Covid, nullify the chance of reinfection and therefore of becoming a vector?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the Cabinet Office is reviewing whether Covid status certification could play a role in reopening our economy, reducing restrictions on social contact and improving safety. That work is under way. The noble Lord refers to the importance of social justice and civic rights, and he is entirely right to do so; those are exactly the kinds of issues that the Cabinet Office is weighing up. We need to look at everything that the technical toolkit can provide us with to fight this virus and any others that may emerge from the back of the bat cave. We are trying to avoid the kind of social, health and economic impacts that these 21st-century pandemics have on our country. Technology such as Covid certificates can provide an important defence mechanism.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend knows that I have repeatedly raised the subject of care home workers. I am grateful for his responses and for the letter that I have had from our honourable friend Nadhim Zahawi in the other place. However, in that letter, the Minister for vaccines acknowledges the vulnerability of people in care homes and that they can be a source of spreading the virus. I urge that an early decision is made to ensure that care home workers, who attend to the most intimate needs of their often extremely frail patients, are vaccinated. To compel them to be vaccinated may seem a bit draconian, but, if we are concerned about the containment of these viruses and their spread, surely being vaccinated is not too high a price to ask care home workers to pay.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I hear the message from my noble friend loud and clear. Vaccination rates among care home workers in some communities are just not high enough. The Government have acknowledged that point, and that is why we have launched the consultation. We must be fair to the social care workers who work so hard, looking after those we love and care about. We have put this consultation in place to understand the most thoughtful, fair and meaningful way to go about this knotty problem. The consultation is moving as quickly as it can, and I assure my noble friend that everything is being done to expedite this matter.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, as the Minister will know, I have been a little doubtful about the amount of effort that has gone into this particular exercise. NHS waiting lists have gone through the roof in the last year, and the amount of care being given has dropped substantially. There is now a huge backlog. What plans do the Government have to get the NHS open again? Surgeries are still closed; hospitals are still closed; doctors are still seeing people only on videos. There is no reason now why surgeries should not start to be opened, and no reason why hospitals, apart from looking after their own convenience, should not start to cut the waiting lists back. I ask the Minister whether one of the very able people who are looking after the Covid programme could be diverted to getting the NHS back into action.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I completely recognise my noble friend’s concerns, but I reassure him that surgeries simply are not closed, and if he has any examples of those he thinks are closed, I would be grateful if he would write to me. Hospitals are not closed and if he has any examples, I would be grateful if he would write to me. In fact, the NHS has for months done a huge amount not only to be wide, wide open, but to grow in its capacity quite dramatically. It is an inevitable, predictable, sad but frustrating fact that the impact of the coronavirus pandemic, like every other pandemic, is the hit or the follow-on effect on all the other procedures that are needed from a healthcare system. We have diverted a huge amount of capacity from Covid to ordinary, business-as-usual care; we are doing a huge amount to address the backlog and we will continue to move the resources accordingly, but we have to keep provision in place for those who, I am afraid to say, are still in hospital with Covid, and we are aware that the threat remains on the horizon.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con) [V]
My Lords, in addition to the great success of the vaccination campaign, at last it is now accepted that the high mortality from Covid in the UK, and in many other countries, is due to the high prevalence of obesity. The high Covid mortality is not the fault of politicians, civil servants or scientists. Does the Minister agree that what we now need is for everyone to unite to support the Prime Minister’s campaign to reduce obesity in order to promote a healthier nation and reduce the mortality from any future pandemics?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the post-mortem is not fully written. When it is, the causes of our relatively high mortality rate will undoubtedly be complex and a number of factors will have played a role, but the noble Lord is right that obesity will definitely be on the list. This country is too heavy in comparison even to our European partners. We are one of the heaviest countries in the whole of Europe and if you are overweight, I am afraid to say that the brutal truth is that your heart is having to work too hard, your lungs are having to work too hard, your immune system is run down and the ability of your organs to fight disease is greatly reduced. That is one of the reasons why a very large number of people have really struggled in hospital to fight this disease. If you are carrying an obesity-related illness, such as diabetes or some other major affliction, you really are in no shape to fight off one of the major diseases.
The resilience of this country depends on it getting fitter. That is why we have focused on the obesity strategy that we have, and we will be building on it further. The noble Lord is entirely right that this challenge is well recognised by the Prime Minister from the top, from his own personal experience and his acknowledged fight with the disease last year. It is recognised by the whole of government and by the NHS and our healthcare system.
Conduct Committee
Baroness Donaghy
That the Report from the Select Committee Registration of members’ foreign interests: follow-up (9th Report, HL Paper 255) be agreed to.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
My Lords, I am moving this Motion as a member of the Conduct Committee on behalf of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mance, because he has interests relating to the contents of the report and therefore recused himself from deliberations on it. I declare my interest as a former member and acting chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. The current chair of that committee, the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Weardale, regrets that he is unable to speak today but has confirmed that he is supportive of the committee’s proposals.
This report is the final piece in a jigsaw of changes that we have put to the House to increase transparency around Members’ overseas interests, reflecting considerable public concern about foreign state influence on our politics and the integrity of our political process. In December, the House approved our proposal that Members should be required to register work for, and earnings from,
“governments of foreign states (including departments and agencies), organisations which may be thought by a reasonable member of the public to be foreign state-owned or controlled, and individuals with official status (whether executive, legislative or judicial) in foreign states when acting in that capacity”.
This is now part of our code, so Members must register the existence of such relationships within one month of them starting, and the level of remuneration within the slightly longer timeline set out in the report.
The one remaining question was whether there should be any exemptions to these requirements on the grounds of professional confidentiality. We gathered evidence to help us make a decision by holding a consultation of all Members and inviting submissions from the professional bodies. Some of the responses did point to a professional duty of confidentiality, but all of them accepted that the information could be disclosed if the client agreed.
That is why we have said two things very clearly: first, any professional relationships with foreign Governments and associated organisations which existed on the date the report was agreed—2 December last year—will not be caught by the new requirements at this stage. Members in such a position will have the whole of 2021 to complete the work, reach an agreement with the client about disclosure, end the relationship, or take leave of absence.
Secondly, any new such professional relationship commencing after the report was agreed in December will be embarked upon in the full knowledge that it will need to be disclosed, along with the level of remuneration. This is a prospective rule, so Members should be telling potential clients that they will be obliged to make these disclosures if taken on. If the client accepts this, then no professional duty of confidentiality will be breached.
Some Members say that this will damage their chances of winning business. Even within each profession —in particular, the law—there are different views on whether this is really true. If some Members lose some work, that is regrettable, but these requirements apply to only a very narrow range of organisations and the committee has made it clear in its report that it has no intention of extending them to a broader range of organisations. This is in spite of the fact that Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee recommended that Members of this House should be required to disclose all earnings in the same way as Members of the other place, a position which is also espoused by the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, in his amendment to my Motion.
Our reason for restricting the reach of our proposals is that, in our view, foreign Governments and organisations under their control are qualitatively different from other types of organisation. For a legislator in the United Kingdom Parliament to be secretly working for a foreign power, whose interests may be diametrically opposed to the UK’s, is just unacceptable to the public in this day and age. It is not just about Russia, as some have implied; even close allies like France and the United States sometimes have an agenda which is at variance with the UK’s national interest.
Furthermore, it is not just about dodgy lobbyists. I accept that lawyers and arbitrators see no connection between their being paid by a foreign Government and what they might say in the House, and this may be accurate. Many people, however—perhaps most—would say that there is at least a suspicion that a Member being paid tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of pounds might be a little more kindly disposed to the organisation paying them than they would otherwise be. It is not just about being beyond reproach in practice; it is vital for our democracy that, wherever possible, Parliament is seen to be beyond reproach. Being a legislator is a privilege, and with that privilege comes an obligation to be transparent. In the view of the committee and many others besides, the public interest must trump Members’ private interests in this instance.
It may be helpful if I address at this stage the proposed amendments to my Motion. The first says that we are going too far, while the second says that we are not going far enough. This suggests that the committee, which has spent many hours deliberating on this issue over the past year, has struck the right balance. Unless, therefore, any new and compelling arguments are made today, I am not minded to accept either amendment. I do, however, wish to assure the House that, if the report is agreed today, the Conduct Committee will carefully monitor its implementation and be open to representations in the light of experience. As always, the Registrar of Lords’ Interests is available to advise Members on how to comply with the rules, and he will also be able to convey feedback to the committee. I look forward to hearing the views of noble Lords today. I beg to move.
Amendment to the Motion
Lord Garnier
As an amendment to the Motion in the name of Baroness Donaghy, to leave out all the words after “that” and insert “this House thanks the Select Committee for its Report Registration of members’ foreign interests: follow-up (9th Report, HL Paper 255), but returns it to the Committee for further consideration.”
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, for introducing this debate. She brings to our proceedings a decade of experience in your Lordships’ House, but also valuable experience gained from her work outside Parliament. The noble Baroness has been an administrator at two universities; has had senior roles in the trade union movement, including as president of the TUC; has chaired ACAS and the Committee on Standards in Public Life; has been on the Low Pay Commission; and has undertaken an inquiry into work-related deaths in the construction industry. In the noble Baroness, we see why this House is what it is and why it works, and why we need to be cautious about disabling Members of this House from participating in its work.
The House can draw on the experience of people from every corner of the country and walk of life. Some are politicians and former Members of the other place, and some are from the professions, religious ministry, academia, public service in government, the Armed Forces and the judiciary, or business or rural affairs, but we bring to this House our own individual and conjoined experiences, which inform the arguments we deploy in what we believe to be the best interests of the country and its governance.
I dare say that today’s task is not one that the noble Baroness had longed for since her arrival in this House. I am not exactly ecstatic about moving my amendment, but I hope to provide a bridge across which the House as a whole can travel in a spirit of mutual respect, thoughtfulness and compromise. I move this amendment not in a spirit of criticism but of collegiality. I want the problem identified by the Intelligence and Security Committee and the Conduct Committee dealt with in a way that satisfies, on the one hand, the interests of your Lordships’ House—one self-governing half of this bicameral Parliament—and, on the other hand, the public interest that parliamentarians do their work unsullied by insidious external influences.
There is another linked but fundamental question: should that which could lead to a change in the constitution of your Lordships’ House come about as the result of a recommendation of a committee comprising of four lay members and four Members of this House? Is not the altering of the constitution of the House, and thus of Parliament and the country, a matter for legislation to be considered by Parliament as a whole? To follow the committee’s recommendations now is to set them in stone—I have heard what the noble Baroness said, but I believe that it will set them in stone—but if we hold off a while, we can still agree with her later.
I refer to my own interests in the register, although I stress that this debate is not about me but about the House of Lords. Although I am a barrister in chambers that do a great deal of commercial arbitration and litigation, some of which involves overseas companies, Governments and government agencies, the international element of my own practice has only occasionally involved advising foreign governments or agencies. Mostly, it involves advising foreign companies or private individuals and, in cases involving the European Court of Human Rights, acting against foreign Governments. In this jurisdiction, I have acted both for and against the Government, and have even had the experience, while representing a former Prime Minister, of referring to the current Prime Minister as “the defendant” and subjecting him to sharp criticism in open court. I am also a consultant to an international firm of solicitors which, among other things, advises not only the United Kingdom Government but foreign Governments. I have worked on those matters but, as I do not know what the firm charges its clients, I have no idea how I could apportion my retainer, which also covers work not caught by the follow-up report.
It would be naive not to realise that this debate has been affected by perceptions and, perhaps, the reality of misconduct in public life. There is obvious public concern, lately aired in the media, about what is called the Greensill Capital affair, but it has nothing whatever to do with this debate, or what concerned the ISC in 2020 or the Conduct Committee this year or last. But that concern is a powerful reason why I suggest we postpone consideration of the committee’s recommendations on the disclosure regime that it seeks to impose upon your Lordships’ House. The chairman of the Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee has announced an inquiry into lobbying. There is the Boardman inquiry, and the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, has a Topical Question this Thursday. Of course, none of this was in the minds of the Conduct Committee, but its reports are being read as though it was. I suggest that a pause will assist, not prevent, proper consideration of the follow-up report.
Our consideration of the questions posed by the report will, unless separated by a margin of some months, be skewed by two elided questions. They describe conflicting matters of public interest, but we are being asked to resolve the conflict in a rush and against a difficult backdrop. Our task is by no means impossible and we can do it if, as a House, we give ourselves time to think it through.
First, should Members of your Lordships’ House who are not doctors but, for example, lawyers, architects, accountants, or practitioners in other entirely legitimate areas of work, have to identify and declare their earnings from foreign Governments or foreign government entity clients, thus having to choose whether to break their obligations of professional confidence, or stop working in order to remain here, or take leave of absence or retire from the House altogether in order to carry on with their lawful professional lives? Secondly, how does this House prevent its Members acting as the covert mouthpiece of a foreign Government, particularly one whose interests conflict with those of our own country?
We do not need to compel the former in order to prevent the latter. As recognised by the ISC, our country is a target for Russian disinformation. There will be other malign state actors too. We cannot be complacent about hostile states deliberately trying to influence our democratic processes, but making me say whether I have advised an EU member state’s justice ministry or a Commonwealth country’s law commission about the English deferred prosecution agreement system, and what I was paid to do so, is not going to stop President Putin suborning our democracy.
This amendment is not an excuse for a lawyers’ whinge, nor was it tabled to criticise any of your Lordships who have chosen, for whatever reason, not to engage in paid work outside Parliament. But nor should my amendment be dismissed out of hand just because lawyers, but others too, will be affected by the report’s proposals. We are an unsalaried House, and I am sure that everyone contributing to this debate has the interests of Parliament and the public in mind.
In June 2020, the Conduct Committee made recommendations about Members’ earnings from foreign Governments, dealing with corrupt or repressive regimes, and restricting parliamentary activities by those who had been on overseas visits paid for by a foreign Government. But that was all about lobbying, and mirrored the ISC’s concerns. With respect, being paid to lobby on behalf of Russia is quite different from being paid to advise or represent a client, albeit a governmental one, in a commercial or other legal dispute.
As Solicitor-General I was precluded by the Ministerial Code and by my professional obligations from saying whether I had advised my client, the Government, on a particular matter, still less what that advice was. If I now appear in open court, subject to an anonymity order, the need to keep confidential the name of my client falls away, but to require me to disclose their name on first payment, or in a matter that never reaches court, would place both me and my client in difficulty. To require the parties to an international commercial arbitration—a confidential way of settling disputes—to surrender their privacy, or to make it impossible for them to employ Members of this House as advocates or arbitrators, will not bother Putin. It goes much further than the rules of the other place, whose membership is salaried, with large office costs allowances, transport costs and a second home allowance. Let us pause and return to this soon, but later.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
I should inform the House that if the amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, is agreed to, the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, will be pre-empted.
Lord Balfe (Con)
I suppose I should begin by saying that for a time I worked for David Cameron. Maybe I was foolish, but I did not get paid. I did it as a volunteer —but clearly I was working for him. I thank my Front Bench for sending round an email to all Members saying that there is a free vote on my amendment. I hope that that will encourage people to vote for it. I would be very interested to hear, in the course of the debate, what the other political groups are advising.
I tabled this amendment because the report came at an opportune time. When the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, was answering questions on the Statement, we heard from the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Brinton, complaints—justified, probably—that contracts had been let but not declared into the public space. And at the heart of my amendment are the words
“if the public are to be supportive of legislation, they have a right to know the full financial interests of legislators”.
The amendment then
“asks the Select Committee to examine the need for the House to adopt disclosure rules”.
It does not tell the committee to do that; it asks it to examine the need—nothing more than that—so it is quite mild. The committee could examine the need, then come back and say, “Look, it just doesn’t work.”
There are many other interests, as well as foreign interests. I have never been paid by any foreign Government, but I have a well-known aversion to certain aspects of Her Majesty’s Government’s foreign policy which I have made quite clear. I have made it clear because that is where my analysis leads me, not because anyone has tried to bribe me. I sometimes feel quite upset that I must be a very lowly species, because nobody wants to bribe me. I cannot even say that I turned a bribe down, because I have never been offered one.
What we have to look at is the perception of the politician by the public. It is not a happy perception at the moment: there is a feeling that we are doing quite nicely, without saying how. We must tackle that. The public have a right to know, in my estimation. I hear what my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier says about barristers, but the Bar Standards Board, in its evidence, says:
“The majority of barristers are self-employed, so it should not be difficult for most barristers who are Members to identify the fees paid to them by a client.”
I do not find it difficult to work out where my money comes from, and I have no difficulty about declaring where it comes from. In the interests of transparency, we should be looking at a system whereby people declare where their principal income comes from.
I am asking the committee to look into this because it is a complex issue. There are de minimis standards, and there are different standards of declaration. They need considering carefully, and they need to be brought before this House; they are not a suitable subject for an amendment. In paragraph 13 the report says that
“the public interest ultimately must override the issue of client confidentiality”,
and that is absolutely right—it must.
It is not unreasonable for us to declare what we are paid. We are legislators, and we are passing laws that affect people on a day-to-day basis. What is wrong with our declaring what we get? I have never found any difficulty with the present rules, so I do not see why any noble Lord should feel great difficulty with a new level of declaration.
Are we going to start telling the Government that we want to know what went on with Greensill? That is well worth a debate, because it reveals, to put it mildly, a lamentable situation in Whitehall which clearly needs addressing. But if we are to ask for that to be addressed, we must address our own situation. Our situation, too, deserves a level of transparency. That is all I want to see.
I will be dividing the House because I should like the public to see how many people do not even want a committee to look at this matter—not doing anything, but just looking at it. Since there will be a free vote on our side, I hope that there will be a free vote elsewhere. I hope that the noble Baroness’s committee will be asked to look at the matter and come back because if we are not prepared even to look at these sorts of matters, we are not fit to be telling the Government to reveal their secrets, which I want brought out into the open. I shall sit down and might move my amendment to the Motion later.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I start by reminding the House that the Conduct Committee was established as a successor to the former Privileges Committee. That earlier committee included Leaders and Chief Whips, and the view was rightly taken that a body distinct from the leadership of the House and with significant outside representation should take that committee’s place. The assumption was that the new committee would have an authority that the old committee lacked. It would have, by virtue of its external members, more professional experience and expertise, and there would therefore be a strong presumption that the House would accept its proposals unless it could be demonstrated that the committee had been in some respect negligent in the way in which it had decided upon them.
In this case, the committee has been diligent in the way in which it went about its task. It sought and received submissions from all interested parties and reached a considered view on how to proceed. That does not, of course, prevent your Lordships’ House rejecting the proposals or sending them back for further consideration, but if the House chose to do either of those things, it could reasonably do so only on the basis that something was seriously deficient in the way in which the committee had done its work that caused its conclusions to be legitimately brought into question.
The central conclusion and recommendation in the committee’s report is to be found in paragraph 8, which states that,
“we believe that the public interest requires absolute transparency when it comes to members of the national legislature working for a foreign power. If the interest cannot be properly disclosed, then it should not be taken on by an active member.”
If the House agrees with that statement it should agree with the report. So should the House agree with that statement?
What constitutes the public interest is often a matter of debate, rather than a black-and-white issue. In this case, there is absolutely no suggestion that any Member of your Lordships’ House who is a lawyer representing a foreign power has used their membership of your Lordships’ House in any way improperly. But that is not the question. The question is whether absolute transparency at this stage will strengthen the perceptions of your Lordships’ House or, just as importantly, whether a failure to approve this report now would damage those perceptions and, therefore, be against the public interest. That is ultimately a political judgment. My political judgment is that failure to pass this report today would damage our reputation. Here, the political context is crucial.
As we debate this report, the Commons is conducting several different inquiries into the rules around lobbying and the registration of ministerial interests. There are serious allegations about the role of the former Prime Minister, former civil servants and serving Ministers. Furthermore, the Government are planning, in the light of potential foreign interference in our domestic processes, to introduce a measure in the next Session requiring all those who work for foreign Governments, even only as PR advisers—not lobbyists—to register their connection formally. Every single aspect of the workings of your Lordships’ House, from the role of hereditary Peers and how much money they claim in expenses more generally, is under intense media scrutiny.
If, in this context, your Lordships’ House were to decide that, uniquely, lawyers who are Members of your Lordships’ House with clients who are foreign powers or their associated organisations should be exempt from registering their interest, this would damage the reputation of the House and would be against the public interest. I therefore believe that the report before us should be adopted today.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, is slightly beguiling, because it says, “There are all these other things going on, so perhaps we should have a look at everything.” Unlike the implication of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, said, the register and the guidance about how we behave is a living document; we amend it regularly. Deciding something today does not set anything in stone. I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, wishes it were not under such perpetual scrutiny. It will not stop being scrutinised or, I suspect, amended. The noble Lord, Lord Balfe, is slightly mischievous when he says that if we do not vote for his amendment, we are somehow saying that we think that everything is wonderful and nothing should ever be looked at again.
We have a good report before us today, which should be accepted. I agree only to this very limited extent with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier: I think we should leave it at that. I do not think we should be going beyond that today. Let us do this and get the clarity which is currently lacking. If other things arise down the line which need to be investigated, the noble Baroness’s committee is perfectly capable of doing so expeditiously. My recommendation, which is personal—people have a free vote and I expect a robust exchange of views among members of my party, as on other Benches—is to vote for the report and against both the amendments.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
As many of your Lordships will know, I was a dissenting member of the committee concerning this report, and mine is therefore a somewhat unusual, perhaps somewhat delicate, position in this debate. First, let me make it absolutely plain: I have no interest myself in its outcome. Although I am of course a retired judge, it is more than 40 years since I had a private client, and never in my life have I arbitrated—and I am not starting now.
Secondly, I have a high regard and, indeed, considerable liking for the other members of the Conduct Committee, and I am certainly not about to rubbish them—only to suggest that on this particular issue, they have now come to a wrong decision and should think again. Their first thoughts were right. The original scheme was set out in our earlier report, already referred to, which I had no problem in presenting to the House in December, the chairman of the committee, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mance, having had to recuse himself, as the House has heard. That report was strikingly different from what is now proposed. Put simply, this proposal, unlike its predecessor, would introduce an absolutist, no exception requirement of registration of any form of governmental or government-influenced earnings.
I will say a word or two about the origins of this proposal. These lie in a single paragraph of the ISC report of 2019, which noted that a number of Members of this House had business interests linked to Russia —that was the only state mentioned—and that those relationships should be carefully scrutinised, given the potential for Russia to exploit them. It suggested that the code and register should provide the necessary transparency, and then pointed out that the Commons requires registration of all payments over £100 from any employment outside the House, home or abroad, and that we should consider introducing such a requirement—essentially what the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, proposes for us today.
Finally, it suggested a foreign agents registration. I will make four quick points on that. First, I understand that a foreign agents registration Bill is now under consideration. Secondly, this House is very different from the Commons; your Lordships are not salaried or expected to work full-time for the House. Rather, we are encouraged to have a broad range of outside interests, financial and otherwise. The guide says that
“the House thrives on their expertise”
and that
“it is not only permissible, but desirable, that such Members, having declared”—
I emphasise this point—
“their employment and other interests, should contribute to debate on issues to which these interests are relevant.”
Thirdly, I suggest that most work undertaken by Members for foreign Governments is beneficial to the UK, not harmful. Members advise, for example, in the fields of good governance, tackling corruption and crime, and human rights compliance. Fourthly, whatever the outcome of this new registration proposal, there is always the clearest obligation for Members to declare any interest that could be thought to affect whatever they contemplate doing or saying in their parliamentary capacity. It is not suggested that this obligation has proved insufficient to this point.
I will briefly mention our earlier report, which I presented, in which the need for exemption was specifically recognised in cases where there is a duty of confidentiality. It was said that the Conduct Committee would consult further on what guidance to give on those exemptions. There was a consultation process, to which 42 Members responded; only three believed there should be no exemptions whatever, yet that is what this report proposes.
Annexed to the report, as noble Lords will have seen, are brief statements from the main professional legal and accountancy bodies about rules, duties and obligations of confidentiality. It is not only these professionals who have such obligations. So too do other Members who offer services to foreign Governments along the lines I have suggested, and in the defence and security field, because of contractual and commercial obligations, which are surely well recognised and which they are subject to. I hope that some of those will be explained during this debate.
Make no mistake: this report would introduce a major new strategic decision, likely bringing in its wake at some point, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Newby, said and the current disavowal of the committee, the requirement on a much wider basis to register all earnings. I cannot think of any other case where the Conduct Committee has sought to introduce a registration requirement which imposes such profound limitations on the legitimate interests and activities of a number of present Members.
Of course, one recognises the virtues of transparency and of course people have in mind at this hour the optics, with the Greensill scandal unfolding in the background, but in truth the cases could hardly be more different. That case exposes a very real and present problem and is rightly being given a lot of attention in terms of how to counter an obvious mischief. Your Lordships are being invited to approve a scheme with far-reaching consequences, with no demonstrating mischief to cure. I suggest that the transparency here, limited by those who are worried about a wider view, is being sought at simply too high a price and at the cost of too much in the way of legitimate interests which are inconsistent with obligations of confidentiality. Those interests should not be sacrificed merely on the altar of a supposed perception; in truth, that would damage the House.
In an article in last Thursday’s Times, the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws—I hope she will allow me to call her a noble friend—although supporting registration is recorded as being
“prepared to ditch the requirement to register the amounts earned, saying ‘we can probably guess’.”
Registration of the amounts earned lies at the heart of this proposal and presents a real problem. Without that requirement, the proposal would be substantially less objectionable, but to achieve that modification, or indeed to deal with various other anomalies and uncertainties that may well come to light in this debate, your Lordships would need to accept the Garnier amendment. For my part, I cannot in all conscience recommend that your Lordships accept this report.
Lord Goldsmith (Lab)
My Lords, I support the amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier. First, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Donaghy on the clarity with which she has presented this report, and I hope she knows how much I respect her opinions. I am not going to speak in any detail to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, as time will not permit, save to note that the points he raises, whether one agrees with his proposed endpoint or not, may support the need for further consideration, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, is hoping for.
Predictably, I want to focus my remarks on the specific position of lawyers. I am not going to develop at any length the arguments in relation to arbitrators, because that, I anticipate, will be adequately done by others, save to say this. The United Kingdom legal system—I suppose one could say industry—is highly respected. One reason for this is the availability of immensely experienced and professional arbitrators. For cases involving states, it is particularly valuable that those arbitrators include retired UK judges, some of whom we have the benefit of having in this House. Foreign states, as well as other foreign parties, are happy to entrust important decisions to such arbitrators, who they have confidence are not only expert but utterly independent and objective.
I fail to see the concern of noble, and noble and learned, Lords of this House about accepting an appointment as an arbitrator. On that ground alone, the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, deserves support. But I believe it deserves support more widely when dealing with the position of lawyers who advise or represent foreign Governments. Here, I disclose my interest. Through my firm, I act regularly for and against Governments, which is a feature to which I will return. I do not lobby on behalf of foreign Governments. I act as a lawyer advising or representing them in actual or potential legal disputes. Of course, as I imagine others will underline, other rules prevent misuse of my position here. I do not believe I have ever spoken in a debate in this House where a foreign government client has been involved.
As for what I do, I may represent them in court, as I did a Caribbean Government in their own courts, and in the Privy Council here in a dispute about their Parliament. I may represent them in international courts, such as the International Court of Justice, in a dispute between several states in the Middle East. I also act in arbitrations, particularly in disputes about the way a state has treated the investments of the nationals of another. This is an important modern device, which has taken the place of gunboat diplomacy when states would seek to intervene to protect the interests of their nationals.
Those representations are mostly in the public domain, and I have therefore disclosed those voluntarily following the first report of the committee. But some are not in the public domain, and some are regarded by the states involved as highly confidential. I am well aware, from experience, that a Government may insist that there should be no disclosure of services in such a matter. Many of them are, as I say, highly sensitive.
Generally, the fees paid are not in the public domain. That matter can also be regarded as very confidential. At least while the dispute is active, the state may not want revelation of what it is paying to foreign lawyers. Under our law and the professional rules of conduct that govern barristers such as me, we are not allowed to reveal that information, save where required by law or with the client’s consent, as the report fully recognises.
The report rightly recognises that the professional duty cannot be overridden, but proposes to deal with that by requiring a client’s consent. That would have to be in advance, as recognised at paragraph 13. It is suggested that not many clients would be deterred. It seems that was based solely on the view of one former holder of high judicial office. I do not think any other evidence was presented. But, very respectfully, I beg to differ. In the field in which I practise, there is almost always significant competition for assignments from different law firms, and, because this is international work, from law firms and lawyers from different countries. If the new disclosure rule comes in, I would have to make it clear, in any pitch or offer, that the client would have to agree to disclose not only that we would be representing them, which in many cases might become public knowledge in due course, but the fees. They may well find that unattractive, because they would be concerned that this information could be misused, for example by political opponents in their own countries. From my experience, I believe that many clients would be deterred.
It goes further than that, because, as I practise in an international law firm, I cannot simply take the view that I can forgo such assignments with equanimity or weaken the showing that we make to potential clients by excluding myself from their possible representation. I have anxiously considered what I should do if this proposal becomes a requirement. I have not finally decided, because for one thing I want to consider all that is said in this debate and its outcome, but I am of the provisional view that I would need to take leave of absence to avoid the dilemma of letting down my partners and colleagues. That is the point that concerns me.
I want to be clear to your Lordships that I am not saying this in terrorem. It is for your Lordships’ House to determine what is best for the House, for Parliament and for the country, and I unreservedly accept whatever decision it reaches. But if that is the route that I determine to take, I thought it right that your Lordships’ House should know why, not least because it would require me to cease chairing the International Agreements Committee, as it is currently my honour to do. I hope it does not come to that, and that the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, enables more thought in these difficulties areas, but I thought I should tell your Lordships that that is where I am. I do not think I will have another opportunity.
Baroness Deech (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest as a former chairman of the Bar Standards Board, which regulates barristers through its code of conduct. By accepting the immense honour of becoming a Member of your Lordships’ House, we explicitly take on certain limitations in the rest of our lives. We take on the Nolan principles; we have to understand conflict of interest and, above all, what it means to act on one’s personal honour and to serve Parliament and the national interest. We have seen, in the recent controversies about civil servants and politicians taking on second jobs, what happens when some of these principles are jeopardised.
The Lords’ Conduct Committee is well aware that, in a small number of professions, there is a duty of confidentiality that makes it difficult for Members to disclose the identity of the Government, organisation or individual to whom services are being provided, and it took that into account. The suggestion that noble Lords should not be required to reveal earnings from foreign work on the basis that it would breach client confidentiality or put them at a commercial disadvantage is, with great respect to noble Lords who are lawyers, without merit.
First, members of the Bar are not obliged to accept foreign work under the Bar code of conduct. Their doing so is a choice. The cab-rank rule does not apply to all foreign work, so a noble Lord can choose whether to accept foreign work and can no doubt advise his or her client that, in so doing, he or she may be required, under the rules of this House, to disclose the level of earnings. It is quite unrealistic to suggest that, if disclosure were required, London would lose its attraction as an arbitration centre. That is, with respect, to regard too highly the contribution made by the handful of lawyers in this House who would be affected by the rule.
Nor is the identity of a client necessarily confidential. One need look only at the websites of, say, Blackstone Chambers, 1 Essex Court, Brick Court or Essex Court Chambers to appreciate that their members—some Members of this House—endlessly list the names of their clients and the prestigious matters in which they have acted for such clients. There may be occasions when advising a particular client is so sensitive that the identity of the client itself cannot be revealed, but, again, that is a matter which should be addressed at the outset with the client by a noble Lord lawyer receiving foreign fees. If the client is not prepared for the noble Lord, his adviser, to discharge his or her duties to this House, the barrister can politely decline to advise and one of the other highly skilled members of the Bar can undertake the work, while the barrister Member of this House will soon be busy with other clients. Is the objection from lawyer Members of this House more about not wanting to be hampered in competing for arbitration work than it is about the sanctity of client confidentiality or the status of London as an arbitration centre?
What may lie behind their objection is not so much the risk to client confidentiality—which, with great respect, is all but non-existent—but that revealing the scale of foreign earnings could be a source of embarrassment to Members of this House who are both discharging public duties and, at the same time, earning very large fees in respect of foreign work. But that embarrassment is not a reason for this House to reject the proposed rule. On the contrary, it demonstrates the need for the rule. If a barrister Peer feels embarrassed at the thought of revealing earnings or clients, it is a good indication that the brief should be declined.
Nolan principles would have to be applied if a barrister Peer were acting for, say, Hong Kong or Myanmar. This would be very relevant in debates and amendments on, for example, immigration Bills, Armed Forces Bills, national security Bills and even financial conduct Bills. It is of course the perception of conflict of interest that matters. No one is suggesting that Members of this House would actually try to influence proceedings in favour of a client without disclosing it.
In the current climate, it is more important than ever that Members of this House should be clear about their dealings with foreign clients. Any exemption from the proposed new rules risks bringing the reputation of the whole House into disrepute, which most of us very much do not want. Barrister legislators may choose what foreign work to take or not take, bearing in mind their privileged position as parliamentarians. There is, I surmise, no shortage of work for them which does not involve such clients.
We should ask our lawyer colleagues to respect the position of the House, accept the committee report and reject the amendments. Although I have sympathy for the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, his amendment would delay what needs to be done right now.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, and all members of the Conduct Committee for their service to the House. Sitting on any committee of your Lordships’ House is a responsibility, but none more so than serving on the Conduct Committee. These are difficult matters, but, as has already been said, we do have choices. Being a Member of your Lordships’ House is not something which is forced upon any of us.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, has explained how complex this matter is, certainly from the perspective of the lawyers of this House and possibly other professional Members of this Chamber. But I believe that it is our responsibility to handle complexity with as much simplicity as possible, and to do everything we can to avoid complexity being perceived as an excuse not to do the right thing.
We have to accept that we live in an era where openness and transparency are important aspects of accountability. Because we are an unelected House, these principles are even more important. Putting in place measures to help us demonstrate our willingness to be accountable for the way we conduct ourselves is important, as is ensuring that we equip ourselves, as a House, to act decisively when one of us fails to meet the standards expected of us in our conduct and behaviour. We cannot always wait for the worst to happen before doing the right thing and hope that a defence of “we would if we could, but we can’t” will stand up to any form of scrutiny.
I understand the arguments that are being made by noble Lords who are opposed to the report and recommendations from the Conduct Committee, but to be absolutely clear, the committee’s recommendations have my full support. I have a huge amount of respect for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, and the other noble Lords who serve in this House while practising law, but I will not be joining him in the Division Lobby if he divides the House this evening.
I have listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, and, like the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, I am sympathetic to his argument, but I am not sympathetic enough for us to delay accepting the recommendations of the committee’s report today. I urge the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, and the committee to consider further what the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, has proposed, but I do not think it is something that should get in the way or delay us today.
In the same vein, I would like to raise one final point. I noted the exchange of correspondence between the committee chair and the Lord Speaker which was published on the committee’s website just a day after it published the report that we are debating this evening. That correspondence is about adding a disrepute clause to our code of conduct. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mance, explains in his letter to the Lord Speaker that it is not possible for the committee to make a recommendation because there remains
“significant disagreement within the House”
about this matter. I am grateful to the committee for the work that it has done, but it is concerning that this important gap in our sanctions regime remains unresolved, and that it is only being debated behind closed doors. The committee chair’s letter says that this matter will be kept under review, and that is very good. But I ask that, before the letter gathers dust waiting for another serious scandal to happen to prompt action, the committee consider how discussion of this topic could be opened up in order to assist us in resolving it, so that, just as we have seen with the matter that we are debating this evening, the topic could be debated more transparently.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I start with a declaration of interest. I am a barrister undertaking mostly commercial construction and professional negligence work. I am also a qualified arbitrator, an accredited mediator and an adjudicator, and I do considerable arbitration work as an advocate—although not presently as an arbitrator—much of it international. I have not, to my knowledge, ever been retained by a foreign Government, foreign government agency, or foreign government-controlled entity. But that is happenstance: I have, for example, appeared against a government-controlled entity.
I oppose the proposed changes in principle—not to protect other lawyers but because I believe that they directly conflict with a professional duty of confidentiality which lies at the heart of the lawyer-client relationship. In this debate, I believe that a perceived concern for transparency, even if genuine, threatens to undermine one of the fundamental features of the right to take legal advice in confidence from a lawyer of the client’s choice.
Of course, this issue goes far wider than the law and affects other professions equally, but in the legal context, at any rate, confidentiality is the right of the client and duty of the lawyer. I do not believe it appropriate for lawyers to offer clients the Hobson’s choice between either retaining the lawyer of the client’s choice and losing the right to confidentiality, or retaining another who will abide by the duty of confidentiality. We, as lawyers, have no right to demand that of our clients, actual or prospective. Who is to say that a client seeking advice at the outset of a retainer may permit confidentiality to be released, only deeply to regret it later, when a client never should sensibly have sacrificed confidentiality in the first place?
In the case of arbitration, where the whole process is by agreement confidential—and with respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, it is not publicised—the position is even worse. The confidentiality is also owed to the other party. Imagine a QC Member of this House retained by an entity controlled by the Government of New Zealand in the arbitration of a dispute with a well-known wine maker. Everyone knows that a dispute is under way, but the arbitration is not public knowledge; nor is it known that the New Zealand Government have retained a QC, nor one who is a Member of this House. The New Zealand public would quickly deduce from the register that the dispute had gone to arbitration and the confidentiality of the arbitration would therefore be blown, entirely without the consent and against the will of one of the parties, who had nothing to do with the retainer.
Let us consider a dispute in England, still involving the New Zealand Government but this time concerning a government contract. The New Zealand Government wish to retain a barrister of their choice for the purpose of taking advice well before litigation. As a Peer, that barrister has to demand the release of confidentiality, whether or not that is in the client’s best interests, or to refuse to act. Such a refusal puts a barrister in breach of the cab rank rule, a point not considered by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, when she mentioned this, because the cab rank rule provides that you have to take a case—in England anyway but, yes, not abroad—if you can, subject to well-defined practical exceptions. Maybe the Bar will change its rules, but the cab rank rule is at the heart of what we do; it underpins the principle that any litigant has the right of access to the barrister of his or her choice.
The situation for solicitors is even worse, a point elaborated on by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith. If a foreign-owned client retains a firm of solicitors, that firm is bound to act in the client’s best interests at all times. If the best expertise in a particular area in the firm was that of a Member of this House, the client would either have to forfeit the right to the advice of the best lawyer for the job or forfeit the right to confidentiality. That is the point made by the noble and learned Lord, and he is absolutely right: it is not acceptable.
Those are only a few of the conundrums that these new proposals present. Yet there is an uncomplicated solution available, which should be considered, if the amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, is passed. In respect of declarations of interest, the code provides at paragraph 97:
“Where a member feels unable to declare a client due to a duty of confidentiality, then the member should not participate in any proceedings or correspond with ministers or officials regarding matters potentially affecting that client.”
If a parallel rule were introduced in respect of registration of foreign interests, the public interest would be protected. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, made similar points. It goes without saying that that requires some trust that Members will comply with the code, but so does every other provision of the code, which we are all bound on our honour to obey.
I urge the House to reconsider and to ask the committee to reconsider, and to support the amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier. I ask the committee to reconsider its recommendations in the light of this debate and of such further research as it can do, in order to avoid the fundamental conflicts inherent in this proposed change in the code.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I too declare my interest as a practising barrister. From time to time, I give legal advice to foreign Governments, primarily on constitutional and administrative law. I appear in court to represent foreign Governments on legal issues both in this country and abroad, just as I do for other clients—sometimes, indeed, against those very same Governments.
I was surprised and disappointed by the Conduct Committee’s ninth report, which we are debating today—surprised because the seventh report published last November recognised at paragraph 13 that
“in a small number of professions there is a duty of confidentiality which would make it difficult for members to disclose the identity of the government, organisation or individual to which/whom services are being provided and/or the level of earnings involved. We propose, therefore, that members in such a position would be able to apply for an exemption from the registration requirement.”
Last month’s report abandons this reasoning and these conclusions, and does so based on fundamental misunderstandings of, at least, the role of the barrister and, indeed, the arbitrator.
As the House has heard, the law is one of those professions in which there is a duty of confidentiality to clients. The very fact that a foreign Government are seeking legal advice from a London barrister is often highly confidential to the client. For perfectly proper reasons, the foreign Government may not wish other persons to know that they are seeking legal advice from me or any other foreign barrister. Confidentiality is fundamental to the relationship of lawyer and client, as the Appellate Committee of this House has recognised.
As your Lordships have heard, the consequence of the Conduct Committee report, if agreed, will be that I and other barristers advising and representing foreign Governments will need to tell prospective clients that we cannot any longer offer them the confidentiality to which they are entitled. The inevitable result will be that many of them will decide to seek legal advice and representation elsewhere.
What is the committee’s justification for this intrusion —and it is an intrusion—into a confidential, perfectly proper and indeed regulated professional relationship? The committee says at paragraph 8 that
“the public interest requires absolute transparency when it comes to members of the national legislature working for a foreign power.”
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, rightly referred to this as the central paragraph of the report. Let us consider the phrase,
“working for a foreign power.”
I have to tell the noble Lord and other Members of this House that, when I sit in Blackstone Chambers drafting a legal advice, I am not working for a foreign power. The very description suggests something sinister and improper. I am giving clients legal advice as to their legal rights and obligations, as I do with all other clients. Some noble Lords—and, I am afraid to say, the committee—fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the role of the barrister.
It is fundamental to the role of the barrister that I am not to be associated with my clients. I act for people of whom I approve, people of whom I disapprove and people to whom I am completely indifferent. The committee fails to understand the role of the barrister. This is more fundamental than a duty of confidentiality. Barristers are not to be associated with their clients, not least because if they were, unpopular people would find it much more difficult to obtain competent representation. No one who understands the ethics of the Bar would think for a moment that for me to give advice to a particular client, whether it be a Government or otherwise, means that I support them in any way whatever.
After summarising the responses that the committee received during the consultation—I was one of those who responded—paragraph 17 of the report simply says blandly that
“the public interest demands that there should be no exemptions to the scheme”.
Why is that? As I have said, legal advice is inherently confidential, it is proper, it is regulated and the barrister is not working for a foreign power. I am not on its team, as seems to be suggested.
The argument is simply this, as I understand it, and the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, made the point: we need to consider how this is perceived by the public. That is the argument. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, nods. My response to him and others who take that view is that if, as I believe, an exemption and other exemptions are justified, it is the task of the Conduct Committee to explain to the public why this is appropriate. It is not for the Conduct Committee to make what I regard as a bad decision because of a fear that the public may otherwise not understand the issue. That is what this comes to. So, for all these reasons, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, on behalf of the committee, to agree today that these are fundamental issues that need more consideration, and I ask the committee to think again about this subject.
The Earl of Lytton (CB) [V]
My Lords, at the consultation stage I sent a very short response on this matter and, having followed progress, I welcome the chance to debate it. I congratulate the Conduct Committee on its work. I am certain I have no relevant foreign interest to declare, unless the presidency of a literary society in Missolonghi, Greece, and having an Austrian wife makes me somehow suspect.
I am mainly a retired surveyor, but most of my life has been concerned with avoiding conflicts of interest with matters of confidentiality, ethics and the public interest. The nation clearly expects higher standards of public figures; that is clear. Some years ago, as a member of the anti-corruption APPG, I noted that the Government-appointed anti-corruption tsar spent more time pointing a finger at foreign powers than addressing the acute issues at home. Standards should surely apply across Parliament. With the greatest respect to other noble Lords, I am not sure that there can be exceptions simply for the fact that noble Lords are unsalaried or it is acknowledged that they have outside interests. It is the legislative process that matters. So, part of me is with the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, but I stress that it is only part.
Peers, as we have heard, are expected to act on their own honour, but it appears from what I will term the Russia report that some do not. In the wake of the Greensill affair, we can also see how vulnerable we may have become domestically and, therefore, how much more so to slick, targeted attempts to influence parliamentarians and Administrations by foreign powers—perhaps jurisdictions where the rule of law does not even wholly apply. If we do not sort this out, the nation will take matters into its own hands, out of disgust, disappointment and distrust in its leaders and parliamentarians. So, this debate is of very great significance if meaningful and trusted dialogue, at the root of the word “Parliament”, is to endure.
I sense, on balance, the probable need to accept what the committee has proposed, but I have reservations. Of course, it might mean changing terms of business and carrying out constant case reviews, and probably arbitrary fee apportionments to establish the earnings, but that is a price I would have to accept, and I could avoid the occasions of risk and further that I am not indispensable. I acknowledge the difference between acting as a professional for a foreign state on its own local administrative matters, and using influence, paid or otherwise, in a manner that seeks to influence our own government legislation of public administration for the benefit of that power.
I am confident that the general public understand the sense of all this, even if not the finer distinctions. We exclude from this House on occasion those who are found guilty of gross bullying, disreputable acts in private, criminality and so on. That nuclear option remains available to us; if Members are shown to have offended, they can be shown the door. Used judiciously, that would have a significantly chilling effect on some of the potential abuses feared by the committee. The report makes clear that register entry accuracy is ultimately the decision of the Peer. It is thus based on trust, as we have heard. However, it does more to capture the activities of the honest and willing than of a few less-honest Members. None the less, registration and disclosure in debate are important safeguards, and I support the Conduct Committee’s ethic of consistent application of known standards.
A popular absolutism is not helpful either, although how we are seen outside is what counts, even if that viewpoint is not particularly well informed. Disclosures in a public register do more than inform the world of where prejudice might lie. They also tell those with less healthy interests who is operating in certain areas and the companies or states that they deal with, involvements which could be of political or commercial value to outside influences and which could potentially identify targets for attention. I therefore wonder whether, in due course, some limited exceptions will become necessary. I can see the difficulty for the registrar in sifting through varying shades of involvement, while it is not necessarily that difficult for the Peer making the entry. After all, if they are unable to grasp the general principles, then the public might question why they are here in the first place.
We are involved in a world where asymmetric conflict exists. We must be aware of that, and I would be grateful at times for periodic briefing and updates on the issues that we need to be aware of and on how to avoid circumstances of influencing. However, going forward, I suggest the following principles. We do not want to completely discourage willing horses. The register and the rules on declaration must be fair, workable and not unduly oppressive. Involvements that are essentially small-scale, iterative and within clearly defined bounds should not become a burden. Practical thresholds should be kept in mind and reviewed, and the significance of the involvement, rather than just the money received, should be weighed in the balance. The subject matter of that involvement ought to have some relevance. For some, it is not significant, but we must be robust in defending whatever is in place and insisting on compliance.
There is an area for further discussion. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, can assure us that the rolling process of review will continue. On that basis, I would support the committee where it stands at the moment.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, I come to this issue for the first time because of the controversy which it has aroused in the House. I have played no part in the previous discussions, but coming to this for the first time, reading the relevant reports and listening to the debate, the issue seems very simple. There is an overriding public interest at stake, and there are private interests which have been submitted to your Lordships, mostly—let us say this openly—by those who have private interests. They should not outweigh the public interest. It is as simple as that. As stated clearly in paragraph 8,
“the public interest requires absolute transparency when it comes to members of the national legislature working for a foreign power.”
The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said that when he sits in Blackstone Chambers he is not working for a foreign power, but he is if he is paid by that power. He works professionally for it; he is not much use to the people paying his bills unless he gives them good professional advice. Any reasonable member of the public accepts, however, that the person who pays you is the person you are working for. That does not mean you do not act thoroughly professionally but it does mean you are working for them, and that should therefore be declared. If the act of declaring it causes embarrassment or—following the noble Lord, Lord Marks—means that a client would regard their right to confidentiality as being breached, then that work should not be taken on by a Member of the national legislature. That is the key point at stake here. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, said that the duty of confidentiality is breached because a client cannot choose a lawyer of their choice, but that is not correct. What we are saying here is that a client cannot choose a lawyer of their choice from the legislature of the United Kingdom.
The actual restriction that this measure would impose —let us be frank—is not great in terms of the range of lawyers who can be secured. But in so far as it imposes that restriction it is perfectly justified, for the reason given in paragraph 13 of the report, which quotes a
“former holder of high judicial office”
as saying
“the public interest ultimately must override the issue of client confidentiality”.
I believe that in the cases we are talking about, which involve foreign states and their agencies—let us be clear that in the states we are talking about, the boundaries between the state and its agencies are not always clear—the identity of the client should be revealed, as should the amount that they are paying.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, for whom I have great respect, laid down four premises for the reference back that he moved, none of which actually hold. His first premise was that if we go down this road then we might restrict the capacity of people from a wide range of professions and activities to participate in this House. There is no such restriction. All we are saying is that the public, and other Members of this House, should be fully aware of the activities of those Members—not that they should be restricted, but that they should be transparent. That surely must be a principle at the heart of a modern Parliament. His second premise was that conduct should be regulated by legislation, not by order. He has been a Member of both Houses, so he knows that is palpably not the case. The conduct of both Houses of Parliament is regulated all the time by changes made by order; it is not regulated by changes made by statute.
Thirdly, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, says that we should postpone a decision because other committees are looking at whether we should go further. There is a case for going further and the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, made it, but that is not a reason for not doing this. It may be a reason for going further in due course, but we should definitely take this step at the moment because it has been so long under consideration by the responsible committee of this House, which, with one honourable exception, has recommended in favour of it. The fourth point that the noble and learned Lord made is that this restriction of the choice of barristers might not particularly affect or concern President Putin. I am not concerned about President Putin; I am concerned about your Lordships’ House and the way in which it conducts its affairs and is seen by the British public. What President Putin does is a matter for him.
The issues at stake here are simple and straightforward. There is an overriding public interest. Private interests have been asserted and our job, particularly those of us who do not have such private interests, is to uphold the public interest. Edmund Burke said:
“Liberty does not exist in the absence of morality.”
There is a straightforward moral issue here, which is that those who participate in the making of the law should not have private interests that are not declared, particularly those that may be antithetical to the interests of the state itself. That is a very straightforward interest and it is overriding in the case of the world as it is now, with the assembly of significant powers that are hostile to us. We should make this change, and we should make it today.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]
My Lords, when I first read the Conduct Committee’s report, I thought it was very sensible and almost boring. When I heard that there had been extensive lobbying against it, I could not see what the problem was at all. Now, having listened to this debate and heard from noble and learned Lords for whom I have huge respect, I understand the problem. However, as someone with no legal training and who considers herself a member of the public for these particular circumstances, I can assure the House that it is not a good look if we do not pass the Motion on the committee’s report today, and with a huge majority.
Of course, confidentiality is important but I see no argument for why foreign Governments should be owed any duty of confidentiality because they have hired a Member of your Lordships’ House. It does not make sense and I do not think that anyone outside the House of Lords, even perhaps other lawyers, would find it a good idea not to vote for this report. Quite honestly, it is a win for transparency at a moment when sleaze and corruption are flooding our political scene. We really cannot do anything but support the committee’s report.
I am very tempted by the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, because, of course, nothing ever goes far enough for me and I would like to see much more stringent measures. However, at the same time I was swayed by the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Newby, about just supporting what the Conduct Committee has done because it has done it with a great deal of thought and consideration. Therefore, I will not vote for the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Balfe. I certainly will not vote for the amendment from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, because I thought his whole argument that we should wait and consider things more was quite nonsensical. Either we do it or not; obviously, we can do it later.
There is also a special provision for lawyers. Paragraph 18 says:
“In recognition of the sensitivity of some legal proceedings we propose that lawyers should be required to disclose the identity of clients only once the relationship has entered the public domain”—
that is very sensible—
“or they have been paid (wholly or in part) for the work, whichever comes first. As with any interest, they would need to make the disclosure within one month of it becoming registrable, but they would have longer to register their fees, as set out in our last report.”
The lawyers are covered here in the sense that if work is current, they do not need to declare it until these other circumstances exist.
Existing regimes often fail to ensure that people in government and politics work for the public interest and not for private gain. We need a legal, formal separation of public service from private enrichment. We need to hold former Ministers, former politicians and even former lawyers to much higher standards than exist at present. I am very happy to support the Conduct Committee’s report and very pleased to have been part of this debate.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I must begin by declaring an interest, although compared with some others it is a relatively insignificant one. When I left the Supreme Court in the summer of 2013 and ceased, after four years, to be disqualified from speaking and voting in the House, I returned here with the intention of spending much of my time here. After all, I had spent 13 years as a Law Lord and it had become like a second home to me during those years. I was delighted to come back and be given the opportunity to play a part in the House’s affairs.
However, I received some invitations to sit as an arbitrator and I did three of them, mostly in my spare time, before I was asked to become the Convenor of the Cross Benches. That is a full-time job and I made it clear that I was not prepared to do any more arbitrations. For my four years as Convenor I did not do any. My practice, such as it was, disappeared and that was pretty well the end of it. However, one invitation arrived afterwards and I did accept it. It is an arbitration that is still live, which is why I am directly affected by what this report has to say.
That is because, as in all the other arbitrations I was involved in, one of the parties is state-aided, although not the one by whom I was invited to be the arbitrator—in any of them, as it happens. As noble Lords may know, there are three. Each side chooses one, and the two choose a chairman. I happened to be, in each of them, the non-state-aided nominated party.
I am not at liberty to say which countries these came from. All I can say is that it was not Russia, or Iran, or even China. I was not aware of any security concerns, or any reason why I should declare that interest at the time. My experience also suggests that it is not at all unusual, in arbitrations in which people such as I are involved, for there to be at least one party who is state-aided; it is a relatively commonplace experience.
Time is short, so, with great respect to the noble Baroness, I want to raise two points of detail on the report where I think there may have been a mistake. The first is the need for Members providing legal and arbitrational services to register their details twice. I do not understand why that should be so. Paragraph 55A, under the heading “Directorships”, tells them in peremptory terms that they need to register their interest under that heading. Then paragraph 57A, under the heading, “Remunerated employment etc”, tells them to do it again.
I do not understand why it should be necessary to do that twice. The first requirement seems to rest on a misconception, because in no respect could an arbitrator be regarded as acting as a director for the state-aided party. In my case I was not nominated by that party anyway, but there is a well-understood rule that you have to declare any interests before you take on a position as an arbitrator. If I were a director of one of the parties, that would disqualify me from being an arbitrator at all. So arbitrations have nothing whatever to with that category and I respectfully suggest that including the requirement to register the details there is an error. It does not matter for the overall picture, because I will certainly register under paragraph 57A—the correct category. So I suggest that that should be looked at again, as there may be an error that should be corrected.
The other point is more personal to me, and it relates to the period of grace as it applies to arbitrators—rather more so than to lawyers. My current arbitration, in which I am one of three, began in 2018-19. The date is important, in the light of paragraph 8, which the noble Lord, Lord Newby, referred to, because that date was well before this issue arose at all, so I had no opportunity to discuss with my co-arbitrators—or, indeed, the parties, to whom I am bound by a non-disclosure clause—the possibility of this issue arising. It simply was not in the picture, and I had no opportunity to say, “Sorry, this new rule is coming up and I should withdraw.” So there is a retrospective element in the period of grace, which affects me very much.
Furthermore, although the arbitration started in 2018-19, it is very long-running and complicated, and proceeds in widely separated stages. We had a 14-day hearing in December, the parties’ submissions did not come in until the end of last month, and we are now beginning to consider the first part of our award, which will then be followed by a further stage, and so on. We have been badly affected by the Covid epidemic. Our hearing in December had been delayed by six months: we were going to meet in June but could not do so. Things were further delayed by the fact that all three arbitrators come from different countries, and we are having to discuss our affairs through Zoom, which is a very unsatisfactory way of dealing with a complicated matter that requires deep discussion.
So the arbitration is long-running, and, I have to say, may well not finish by the end of this year. I am in a difficult position, because I am told that if it has not finished by 31 December, I have to take the various steps referred to in the paragraph about the period of grace. The first, which is to finish the arbitration, will not arise in my case. The second is to obtain the consent of the parties to the release of their names and details. I simply do not know whether I can achieve that, given the confidentiality clause.
The final step mentioned is to terminate the relationship. Now you cannot do that in an arbitration. An enormous amount of work has been put into it, and nobody can take my place. If I leave, it would hugely disrupt the whole process and would probably result in an enormous claim for damages against me for breach of contract. So in that situation I would be driven to seek leave of absence, which I would very much regret having to do.
I was invited by the Convenor to be a member of the Constitution Committee, and I am in my first year of a three-year appointment. I would have to come off that at the end of December, which would be a severe penalty for me. I wonder why I should be put under that penalty for a situation that was not an issue when I took this job—so I suggest that that should be looked at again.
The fair thing to do for people in my position, with an arbitration that began before December 2020 and that is still ongoing and likely to go on beyond the end of the year, is simply to say that this does not apply to that arbitration.
I will make one other point before I finish—I am sorry to be taking so long. An arbitration is a one-off event: it is not a continuing relationship. When it finishes, that is the end and I never see the parties again—whereas a lawyer representing a party may have a continuing relationship with no ending until the party declares it should end. So there is nothing wrong, I would have thought, in simply exempting people in my position from having to get involved in this and having to seek leave of absence. Those are two particular points that I would invite the noble Baroness to look at very carefully at some future date.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I draw the House’s attention to my interests in the register. Those interests include working with several foreign Governments. I have declared these clients; in fact, I have declared all my clients since I came into this House—not because somebody told me to, but because I believe it is the right thing to do. In so doing, I have lost potential work and clients. I advise Ministers, Presidents and senior civil servants on very confidential matters. That is a personal financial issue for me because, first and foremost, I see myself as having the privilege of being a legislator in this Parliament, and that is my primary function and role.
The reason it is the right thing to do is that all noble Lords in this House hold a very privileged and powerful position in being able to influence public and government policy. Our privileged position is further ingrained by the fact that all of us are here for life, without having to be accountable, via an election, to the general public for the decisions we take on their behalf when voting on legislation and influencing public policy. Noble Lords are not ordinary citizens. We have special rights, privileges and duties that mean in a modern parliamentary system our interests should be fully declared. So, as parliamentarians, as we go about our duties trying to influence public policy and legislation, those who are asked to abide by the decisions this Parliament makes can see if any conflicts of interest arise between individual Members and how they vote, the questions they ask or even the debates they take part in. That is one of the central pillars of what a modern, open and transparent parliamentary system should have in place.
Many citizens listening to this debate will be bewildered that some in such a privileged position advocate for a parliamentary system where Members can secretly work and get paid by foreign Governments. Some of them have questionable human rights records, have tried to influence British elections or have tried to undermine the interests of the UK. One reasons they will be bewildered is that they pay taxes, which then go to pay allowances to Members of this House to carry out their parliamentary duties. But some noble Lords who are receiving payments from the public purse want to deny the right of those who are paying our allowances through their taxes to see what conflicts of interest arise from payments by foreign Governments to individual Members of this House.
The report from the Conduct Committee cannot be left to professional bodies and different parts of the legal system debating whether they can get paid in secret for advising foreign Governments, while making laws and influencing public policy in this Parliament. This is a matter first and foremost about the public interest; that must be primary and above any commercial relationships that Members of this House have with foreign Governments.
The seven principles of public life make that very clear. The principles, also referred to as the Nolan principles, apply to anyone who works as a public officeholder. This includes all those who are elected or appointed to public office nationally and locally. The first and primary principle is selflessness:
“Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest.”
Another principle is openness:
“Holders of public office should act and take decisions in an open and transparent manner. Information should not be withheld from the public unless there are clear and lawful reasons for so doing.”
There is nothing stopping the future disclosure of which foreign Government a Member is advising and getting paid by. The foreign Government will have to make a decision on whether they wish to hire their services on the basis that it will be public and that they will be being advised by a Member of this House. Once that is in the open, it would indeed be in line with the long-held principles of holding office in public life.
Let us be clear. The real issue we are debating is one of potential future commercial relationships with foreign Governments that could have financial implications for some Members of this House. That is a commercial issue and not one that should be central to or influence the rules of conduct that this House has to work to. The Conduct Committee’s report brings the principles of working in the public interest in the most open and transparent ways to the fore. Working in the public interest, underpinned by best practice in openness and transparency, needs to be the bedrock of the rules of this House and must not become blurred or diluted by the commercial or financial impact such rules might have on Members of this House. That is why I fully support the Conduct Committee’s recommendations.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, that while I am sympathetic to what his amendment states, if it slows down the implementation of the committee’s report, on this occasion, I cannot support it, but if laid in future I will be able wholly and easily to support such an amendment.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB) [V]
My Lords, last week, the Times described this debate as a battle of “prominent lawyer-peers”. Not being a lawyer, I tiptoe on to the battlefield with trepidation and hope not to get my head shot off in the crossfire.
To start with, I make it clear that I agree that it is manifestly right that we should be transparent about interests involving foreign states, just as with any potential conflict of interest. However, these rules as proposed appear aimed more at the direct personal provision of advice and seem less well suited to more normal employment situations. I fear they may have unintended consequences in some circumstances.
Let me give a theoretical example based on my experience. Before joining the House, I was employed by a large American multinational company which provided software and related services to a wide range of customers globally, including financial services, education and emergency services. I should be clear that I have not been employed by the company since I joined the House. Most customers were not state-owned organisations, but among them were state-owned banks, sovereign wealth funds, state debt management offices, many hundreds—possibly thousands—of US high schools and universities, and other state authorities and emergency services in the US.
My role in the company, which was not customer facing, would probably not have been affected by the amended code. However, it is easy to see situations where other roles might have been caught. For example, a software engineer or product designer creating something as innocuous as a login module, which might be used across multiple products, could find their work routinely provided to many of the state-related entities I mentioned. Whether that would be caught by the wording of “personally provides services” is not clear to me, but certainly that person’s personal work would be provided to the customer. If that same person was also part of the helpline—perhaps assisting customers having login problems—that would certainly be a personally provided service. In that example, I think people would agree that it clearly would not make sense to have to list the many hundreds of US high schools and universities using the software, only part of which was created by the employee.
On top of that, there is the issue of customer confidentiality. My employment contract included robust customer confidentiality clauses and, as is normal in the industry, most customer contracts also included confidentiality clauses. To meet the proposed code, in my example all of the relevant customers, which might be many hundreds, would need to consent to the disclosure of their details and the employer would need to consent to the breach of the employment contract. That simply would not happen. It would be much easier for the employer to terminate the employment or to employ someone else. Further, it would be difficult, even impossible to say what level of remuneration related to the foreign state entities, even if the employer allowed it.
I confess that I find the wording of paragraphs 57(b) and 64 somewhat confusing. To take my example further, let us say that the Member is paid a fixed salary of £50,000 a year by the employer, and the total annual revenues to the employer from the relevant state-related customers totals many millions out of perhaps many hundreds of millions of the total revenue of the employer. I am not at all clear what should be registered here. Should it be the salary, the revenues by customer for the potentially many hundreds of US high schools, or something in between?
The challenge we face is that every situation is different and a one-size-fits-all approach may have the unintended consequence of causing a perfectly reasonable employment to be terminated. In the example that I have given, would it not be sufficiently transparent to register the employment, describe the types of customers and which countries, and disclose the total remuneration received by the Member from the employer? Providing individual details, as the code will require, including trying to apportion revenues of a host of arm’s-length customers, may not be practical or possible and, frankly, may not add much to the transparency anyway.
I said at the start that I support the principle of these proposed changes and I suspect that the practical issues that I have raised will not be common. Therefore, I do not support the amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier. However, I urge the Conduct Committee to keep under review whether the new rules are creating an impediment to perfectly normal and reasonable employment situations, and if necessary to introduce some flexibility to look at particular situations and advise appropriate disclosure on a case-by-case basis that does not necessarily involve naming the underlying individual clients.
On the other hand, there is one area where the code may need tightening further in respect of foreign state entities—that of employment in a sales or an introduction role. It is not hard to imagine that being a Member of this House might open doors. If, for example, a Member, as an employee or consultant, made or facilitated a sale of a software solution to a foreign state, the Member would not be providing any service to that foreign state customer. The employment or consultancy relationship would have to be registered, but because no service was being personally provided to it the foreign state connection would not have to be disclosed under the proposed rules, even if the Member received a commission from the employer directly related to the sale or introduction. That feels like something that ought to be disclosed.
While I do not agree with everything in the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, mainly because we need to recognise that this House is different from the full-time salaried House of Commons, and I will not therefore support the amendment, I agree that these matters must be kept under review to make sure that we are properly transparent about potential conflicts of interest.
Viscount Goschen (Con) [V]
My Lords, I start by declaring my interest as an employee of a large multinational executive search and consulting company. In that capacity, I work alongside the boards and leadership teams of a range of corporations and organisations, primarily supporting them in the appointment of board members, chief executives and other senior executives.
I fully support the declaration of material interests in the register and in the Chamber when addressing the House. The proper declaration of interests is an important part of the structure that provides transparency, gives the public confidence in their lawmakers and protects the integrity of the House. Furthermore and specifically, I, along with the rest of the House, take extremely seriously the spectre of influence by foreign Governments, be that perceived or actual. I therefore welcome the vigour with which the Conduct Committee has approached the issue. I should state that the great majority of the work that I undertake is for publicly listed or privately owned companies and not for government-owned or controlled organisations. The specific effects of these measures on me personally would therefore be extremely limited indeed.
However, the reason for my contributing to this debate is that I am concerned about the direction of travel that the House is taking regarding the declaration of Members’ interests. It is a central tenet of this place that we are an unpaid House, unlike another place. Members are not salaried, although an attendance allowance is available to those who wish to claim. It is therefore important, if we are to avoid a membership consisting solely of those who do not need to work or who are retired, that Members should be able to conduct their legitimate professional activities, provided—this is important—that those activities do not conflict with their duties to Parliament.
If the measures before the House today were to be seen as a precedent, it would then extend in future to commercial as well as governmental clients, and I can see very major problems indeed. I would draw a very clear distinction between, on the one hand, lobbying activities, which are particularly sensitive, especially those undertaken through some sort of personal service arrangement, and, on the other, entirely commercial activities, which have really very little bearing on public life, if any at all, and the business of Parliament. Although the experience I have is in a relatively specialist consulting field, the implications would be very similar for activities such as investment banking, for example.
In my own field, having a requirement to publish the identity of one’s clients, and, indeed, fees charged, sounds superficially attractive as a governance measure. But the consequence would be the imposition of a serious obstacle to the ability of an individual to undertake his or her legitimate business, and in the commercial example, the transparency benefit would be minimal. I will take these points in turn.
First, the very fact that a firm has been commissioned by a company such as the one for which I work, together with the identity of the consultant managing an assignment, could be very sensitive information in the public arena to that client, both internally and externally, particularly in the context of a listed company, where, quite rightly, there are very strict legal governance requirements regarding the disclosure of sensitive and privileged information. If, faced with a choice between a firm whose involvement would have to be declared and one which would not, it is straightforward to see what the outcome would be.
Then there is the question of the quantum of fees; there are a number of arguments around this field. The first, in my mind, is that there is a world of difference between the fee that a corporate consulting company is paid and the remuneration that an individual employee may receive; it is a complex issue. The second is that the quantum of the fee may give a strong indicator as to the type of assignment being undertaken, which may well in itself be confidential. The third point is that this would be revealing highly commercially confidential information to the great disadvantage of the firm making that disclosure. The fourth is that the client itself may find that sensitive, specific information.
We must tread carefully here, and we should err on the side of caution, and disclosure, where that would help maintain confidence in the integrity of the House, which is its most precious asset. However, we should also be cautious not to set in train a disclosure regime that could prevent legitimate commercial activity with nothing whatever to do with Parliament or national debate. I feel that the emphasis should be on ensuring that Members do not take on work which would compromise them, their reputations or that of this House, in particular with regard to foreign Governments. I do not feel that disclosing a questionable relationship should give any sort of cover whatever, and Members should exercise and demonstrate their own judgment, and act on their personal honour.
There is danger in overdisclosure, and I am concerned that the really important issues may get hidden behind a swarm of irrelevant disclosures. My noble and learned friend Lord Garnier has done the House a great service by having the courage to raise these issues and bring to its attention that there could be significant unintended consequences of overprescriptive regulation.
I think the House should understand clearly that to adopt this measure would essentially mean that people in the type of environment that I am in would not work for foreign Governments. That is fine and I fully accept that but, if that measure were extended to commercial clients, the implication is that people in a consulting and, very possibly, a legal environment would not be able to undertake commercial work. It is very important that the House realises the consequences of what it is adopting.
The ship has sailed in the sense that we have asked the committee to go away and consider these matters and it has reverted to the House, having heard representations, including from me, and given its judgment. I support the thrust of what my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier is trying to do, but I think that that ship has now sailed. However, we need to keep this under close review and should be very cautious about putting forward a situation which means that Members cannot undertake commercial work.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I warmly congratulate and commend my noble friend Lady Donaghy on taking on the serious responsibility of moving the Motion on behalf of the committee and doing it so effectively. I totally regret that, from one quarter, there was implied criticism that she and the members of the committee somehow did not understand the relationships between client and barrister —or client and advocate, as this is still the United Kingdom.
By contrast, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, described in his very elegant introduction her long, varied and impressive experience, which I commend him for. It is a pity that someone else did not accept that. I have great respect for the noble and learned Lord and his work in this House. He and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope—with whom he is having a consultation at the moment—and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, who are all speaking today, serve with me on the Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee and do some tremendous work. They work hard and contribute a great deal from their legal experience—incidentally, they do it for nothing, which is even better.
However, I disagree fundamentally with his amendment. I hope that, after considering all the aspects of the issue and listening carefully to this debate —particularly the impressive speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, who, if I picked up correctly, was chair of the Bar conduct committee so must know a thing or two—he will withdraw his amendment.
I have some sympathy with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, and was swithering about supporting it if he pushes it to a vote. However, on reflection, I think it would be better—this is the value of this debate, by the way, to listen to what people are saying—to raise it with the committee directly rather than pushing the amendment today, which I fear might not get through anyway. I think I saw my noble friend Lady Donaghy nodding earlier, when the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, was speaking, to indicate that she would accept his suggestion that the committee further examine this.
This report is a follow-up to the report of the committee which was unanimously approved by the House on 2 December, so it is not sudden or unexpected. That report was based on recommendations of the Intelligence and Security Committee, which spent a long time looking at the malign influence of Russia on our democracy. Having served on the ISC for a number of years, I know how very carefully it considers its recommendations. They are based on well-informed evidence, particularly from our very good intelligence agencies, and should not be cast aside lightly.
We should not be looking to ignore the action proposed by the Conduct Committee in any way at any time. But at this current time, as others have said, it would be particularly unwise to reject it for the following two reasons. First, with the Greensill scandal, the reputation of parliamentarians has sunk, sadly, to a new low. The public are rightly appalled at politicians using their positions for preferential treatment to try to amass—not earn— fortunes. The NHS procurement preference had already tarnished reputations, but now, with the involvement of a former Prime Minister, we have reached a nadir. Secondly, the reputation of this House and its very existence is coming under threat from different quarters, some surprising.
I believe that a Second Chamber is vital for our democracy. Those who look at what is happening in Holyrood, where they do not have a revising chamber, will come down on that side as well. I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, agrees with me on that. While I support reform of this Chamber, I recognise that our current membership provides a wide range of experience. However, there remains a challenge to our existence from these different quarters. The challenge is whether we have real democratic accountability, and we should be careful not to provide critics with extra ammunition.
We are also facing increased threats and challenges from Russia and other countries. In the case of Russia, we have the massing of forces on the border with Ukraine to add to the arrest of Alexei Navalny, the Skripal poisoning and many other outrages. When our Government and this Parliament are considering what actions to take in response, whether Magnitsky sanctions or any other measures, we need to be absolutely sure that all Members are taking their decisions in the interests solely of the people of the UK, influenced in no way by outside factors. Our actions need not only to be beyond reproach but to be seen as beyond reproach.
The recommendations have been carefully considered by the Conduct Committee, which has relevant experience and knowledge that we do not all necessarily have. The recommendations have the support of all four independent Members, who have been brought on to that committee for their experience, and they have the support of the three major party representatives on it. They have gone out of their way to consider carefully the representations from the bodies representing lawyers and the substantial advocacy of the Members of this House with vested interests, which we have found again today. Rightly, they conclude, as my noble friend Lord Adonis said, that the public interest must come first. Some might reasonably argue, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, does, that the committee has gone too far to accommodate the interests of the lawyers, including a period of grace until the end of the year. Although, as we heard from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, that raises particular problems.
We each must consider how, and particularly why, we are Members of the Lords. Is it to contribute to the good governance of our country by reviewing and revising legislation and challenging the Government—the work of a legislator—or is it to make a fortune? I have no doubt what my purpose here is.
None of us is obliged to continue as active Members if we instead want to make money by advising a foreign Government without registering that interest. We are not saying that Members cannot continue to do this, but they would have to register that interest. We are not saying that work should not be undertaken, just that it should be registered and the record publicly available. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, that clients can get confidential advice from barristers who are not Lords. Although it seems that most of the barristers around seem to be here today, there are an awful lot remaining who are not Members of this House. The options of leave of absence and retirement are now available—people in other professions take leave of absence if they feel there is a conflict of interest.
I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier and the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, will consider their amendments and the House will adopt this report unanimously. That will send a clear, positive message to the public that this House takes its responsibility seriously.
Lord Bhatia (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I have listened carefully to the speeches made by various noble Lords who are lawyers. I am not a lawyer, but I was impressed by the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis. He simplified the whole report, and I am grateful to him. I have therefore decided not to read out the speech that I prepared.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I will also not trespass on the House’s time for too long, because the principal arguments have been made, from both sides, by far more accomplished advocates than I could hope to be. But I want to underline a few specific points.
I accept that the rule may pose difficulties for some individual Members. We heard, for example, from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, for whom I have a huge amount of respect and on whose committee I have the privilege to serve, about some of these difficulties. Notwithstanding those, the essence of this matter is simple, to my mind: it is whether the public interest should prevail over private interests; whether the manifest public interest in transparency regarding the relationships that legislators choose to have with foreign Governments trumps the private professional interest that individual Members may have in the confidentiality of their relationships with such clients.
We have heard much this afternoon about the obligation on lawyers to protect client confidentiality. With respect to noble Lords who have deployed those arguments, including my noble friend Lord Marks, they do not seem relevant. The Conduct Committee report does not interfere in the duties that lawyers or anyone else owes their clients, nor do I suspect that the committee has the power to interfere, even if it wanted to. No lawyer or other professional is required to break any of their obligations under the proposals of the committee. Members of the House of Lords who choose to represent foreign Governments will be required to seek the agreement of a prospective client to transparency, in advance of taking on that client. If the prospective client is unwilling to agree to such transparency, the Peer then has a choice: whether to represent that client or whether their role as a legislator takes precedence, in which they case they will decline to act.
Many of us make choices in our professional life that are very different from the choices that we would make if we were not legislators. That is absolutely right. As soon as we become legislators, our primary obligation has to be to the public interest. From time to time, that may well curtail our private interests. If, at any time, we determine that our other interests need to take precedence, for whatever reason, we have the option of withdrawing from the House for a period of time via leave of absence, as I did a couple of years ago.
What we cannot do, with all due respect to Boris Johnson, is to think that we can have our cake and eat it. As recent events have served only to underline, transparency is essential to the health of a democracy. It is particularly important when it comes to the relationships that its legislators have with foreign powers. The public rightly demand that transparency. The Intelligence and Security Committee has recommended it specifically for this House, and reason and good governance require it. As we have heard, the Intelligence and Security Committee proposes that we should go further and disclose payments from all employment sources. I support the principles behind the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Balfe. My reticence is only that it would delay this report being adopted. I will certainly support such a Motion if it comes back to us.
It may be that, on occasion, the obligation imposed by the Conduct Committee proves commercially disadvantageous to some Members, but that cannot be our concern. In determining this matter, our concern must solely be with the public interest. In endorsing this report without amendment, we will show that that is exactly where it is.
Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury (CB) [V]
My Lords, as someone who since 2018—since retiring as a judge—has been practising as an international arbitrator and legal expert, I must of course disclose a real and substantial interest in the issue being debated this afternoon.
As recent events have shown, the need for transparency in the field of Members’ outside interests is very important, but any change to the rules has to be justified and proportionate. Overregulation and unnecessary regulation are self-defeating as they undermine regulation by bringing it into disrepute, and rushing to judgment in legislation or rules can notoriously lead to difficulties. We should not include unnecessary categories of registrability, especially when they may cause damage; while the report asserts the need for the relatively blanket regulation proposed, it does not really explain why it is necessary.
So far as they relate to the legal profession, the proposed amendments are problematic in three important respects: first, they cut across some fundamental legal principles; secondly, even if that is held not to be a sufficient objection to the rules change, they are also questionable in relation to arbitration; thirdly, while—to be fair—recognising the confidentiality problem, they deal with it in a way which is demonstrably unsatisfactory. On the first point of cutting across principles, I can add very little to what noble Lords, in particular the noble Lords, Lord Marks and Lord Pannick, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, have said. However, I add that much has been made of public interest against private interest. While I readily accept that my private interest and theirs can be said to be affected, that is not something that I accept should be taken into account; but the rule of law is as important as anything else, and part of the rule of law is the right to a lawyer of your choice and the right to confidentiality. On any view, that is being cut into.
Turning to my second point, I suggest that even if one were happy in principle with the proposals, it is highly questionable whether they should apply to arbitrations, at least so far as the appointment of arbitrators is concerned. Commercial arbitrations, whether international or national, are like court cases save that they are mostly held strictly in private; that is one of arbitration’s principal attractions. They are of enormous benefit to this country financially, and not just to individuals, because we are probably the international arbitration centre—indeed, the international legal centre—of choice in the world. It is also right to mention that there are one or two types of arbitration which are public.
Normally there is a panel of three arbitrators, one appointed by each party, and the third appointed by the other two. Even though the three arbitrators are paid by the parties, an arbitrator, whoever appoints him or her, has no duties to any party save to conduct the arbitration independently and fairly; in other words, like a judge. Quite why that makes an arbitral appointment disclosable is a mystery to me other than the—perfectly true—point that the arbitrator may be paid by the foreign power if a foreign power is involved. However, there is no duty to the foreign power; indeed there is positively no duty to act in its interest but a duty simply to act like a judge. I therefore question the applicability of these new regulations to arbitration while freely admitting, as I have said, that this is in my personal interest as well.
Finally, I wonder about the provisions, which have been mentioned already, found in paragraphs 55A and 57A. To the credit of the committee, they try to deal with confidentiality. They say that Members who provide legal services to a foreign Government need not register until one of two conditions is satisfied: first, that the matter is public knowledge; or secondly, that the Member is partly or wholly paid. Condition 1 is, as has already been said by another speaker, entirely sensible, and nobody could quarrel with it. But condition 2, which makes the instruction disclosable only when the lawyer Member is paid, is illogical in principle and perverse in practice. It is illogical because if the matter is confidential, the client’s right to confidentiality is permanent and continues after the lawyer is paid. It is perverse in practice because a lawyer, particularly an arbitrator, will often not be paid—and, indeed, can arrange not to be paid—until the whole matter is over. The idea that the House will know of the Member’s involvement with a foreign Government only once that involvement has terminated is pretty cockeyed, and Members’ purely historic interests or connections are of limited relevance.
I should add that, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, has shown, the transitional provisions giving effect only to appointments that have been made to date until the end of the year are very problematic.
In conclusion, while I sympathise with and support the whole thrust and basis of the report, I therefore suggest, in agreement with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, that the committee should consider the possibility of introducing some more satisfactory qualifications to the relatively blanket nature of the current proposals.
Lord Grabiner (CB) [V]
My Lords, I disclose my interest as—I am afraid—another practising barrister and occasionally as an arbitrator in international commercial arbitrations. In my career, I have acted for and against sovereign states, and I have participated in arbitrations to which foreign states have been party. Currently, I have no such instructions or appointments.
Essentially, I agree with all the points made just now by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury, but, personally, the recommendation of the committee would not be a problem for me and I could live with it. However, I respectfully suggest that serious points of principle arise here, including the points that have been made.
In its November 2020 report, the Conduct Committee recognised the duty of confidentiality owed by lawyers to their clients and by persons, who are often but not invariably lawyers, appointed to act as arbitrators. It proposed—this has been referred to before, but I have a slightly different point to make—that affected Members of your Lordships’ House would be able to apply for an exemption from the registration requirement, and that, if granted exemption by the Registrar of Lords’ Interests,
“the member would … register the type of client”
but would not be required to name the client. That seemed a sensible compromise which would, under the supervision of the registrar, improve transparency and, at the same time, respect the confidentiality concern. I am afraid that I was rather surprised by the follow-up report, which concluded
“that the public interest demands that there should be no exemptions to the scheme”.
With great respect to the majority of members of the committee, that is merely an a priori assertion. I say that because the follow-up report contains no analysis by way of support for or explanation of that bald assertion. In particular, we are not told the mischief that the committee was presumably concerned to exclude by its rejection of the confidentiality exemption.
In my view, the arguments the other way are far more weighty. First, a multitude of entities, including many sovereign states and emanations of them, adopt arbitration as the preferred process for dispute resolution because they desire—indeed, they are entitled to—the privacy of arbitration in a range of complex commercial matters. As other noble Lords have said, they choose English law and London because of the quality and reputation of our legal system and our commercial court, which supervises those arbitrations. They also make that choice because of the world-class reputation of UK-based arbitrators, a significant number of whom are Members of your Lordships’ House.
It may not be widely known among your Lordships, most of whom are, thankfully, not lawyers, that the parties to many, if not most, of those arbitrations are foreign and their underlying disputes have no other UK connection. These legal services make a significant contribution to the UK economy. If, as would usually be the case, the parties to the arbitration are not prepared to waive their entitlement to confidentiality and wish to appoint a Member of this House—for example, a retired Supreme Court Justice—as the arbitrator, the effect of the proposal we are discussing is that she or he would either have to decline the appointment or take leave of absence from the House.
Secondly, it is difficult to understand how or why such an arbitrator Member could—still less, would—be able in any way to advance the interests of the appointing party in the performance of her or his role in this House. The same point applies to an advocate instructed to act in litigation for a sovereign state. Advocates are not lobbyists, public relations consultants or formulators of public opinion. They simply present arguments to judges in court or to arbitrators in arbitration. The key point for me is that there is no identifiable mischief which would result if the suggested exemption were permitted. If there were one, I am sure the Conduct Committee would have spelled it out.
Peers have always been actively encouraged to pursue their outside careers—other noble Lords have made that point. Their worldly experience is what qualifies them to be Members of the House. I hope your Lordships will support the amendment put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier.
I add that London is a world-class centre for legal services and it needs to be strongly supported. The proposal before us is disproportionate and unnecessarily prescriptive. If adopted, it would not improve transparency in any meaningful way and, sadly, it may result in some very talented people taking leave of absence from your Lordships’ House. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, is a valuable Member of the House and it would be a sad day if he felt the need in these circumstances to take leave of absence.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, as is known, I am not a lawyer. I have found this debate fascinating and interesting. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, for introducing the debate in the way that she did. I want to mention two speeches which have struck me, without going into detail. One was from the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and the other was from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. I am not looking for exemptions but, given the proposals in the report, the practicalities of the timing of the particular issue he is involved in are worthy of consideration. I am not looking for exemptions for arbitrators but, in the circumstances of something that was under way before this came on the horizon and which is not due to finish until after the end of December, I could make a special case for that and it is worthy of consideration.
Paragraph 1 makes clear that the report came as a result, as has been said, of the Intelligence and Security Committee’s report on Russia. Published in July 2020, the report was of course completed well before the 2019 general election. Paragraph 54 of that report is the kernel of this, where it sets out certain concerns. These related exclusively to Russia. It says that
“members of the Russian elite who are closely linked to Putin are identified as being involved with charitable and/or political organisations in the UK”,
and we could name them. It goes on to say that
“a number of Members of the House of Lords have business interests linked to Russia, or work directly for major Russian companies linked to the Russian state—these relationships should be carefully scrutinised, given the potential for the Russian state to exploit them.”
I think it went on to say that the code of conduct of the Lords should be made closer to that of the Commons.
The government response to the report is interesting and, of course, it was published on the same day as the report. On paragraph 54, the Government said:
“The Government is confident that the Conduct Committee will give due consideration to the recommendations.”
In other words, get on with it. It was not, “Do nothing about it”, it was, “Get on and do something about it.” In my simple, non-lawyerly view, the case is open and shut. The report should be supported as it is. The reputation of the House of Lords is the most important issue. Of course, individual and professional courtesies apply, as in all walks of life, but they are secondary to the House’s reputation. It is not about perception: the public are not stupid. They can see a dud area when it is put in front of them, and the reputation of the House is subject to massive damage, which undermines the principle of what we do.
We can all make complaints about the size of the House and our procedures, and look for reform, but the fact is that, by and large, it is accepted that we have a right to ask the House of Commons to think again and again on certain issues, and that is a legitimate way—we have had some examples, I understand, from the other place today. I can see, of course, that titles are not unimportant to marketing, legal and other similar services. It is obvious, but why should there be exemptions for lawyers alone? It does not apply to any other professions, such as professional engineers working abroad on massive overseas exercises and projects and Members of your Lordships’ House. The result of the consultation on possible exemption for lawyers is not such that I would agree that the perception on the reputation of the House takes second place, because that is effectively what people are saying. I think it is absolutely clear-cut: if the House wants to put its reputation first, it should support the report.
I also fully accept that we are unpaid. In my case, I am retired on a House of Commons gold-plated pension, so I have no outside interest and I did not work after I left government—and I count the Food Standards Agency in that. So, maintaining outside interests for people coming into the House at a younger age is important. Maintaining the expertise is fine, but who is it for? Is it for the House to share the knowledge, or the individual? I can honestly say that I took the opportunity to check some Hansard records, and at least two Members on the speakers’ list today have not contributed to the House for three years. They have not given the benefit of their expertise to the House. They are on the speakers’ list today; they are not on leave of absence. Let us be clear about this: it is an open and shut case, and there are vested interests galore.
To be honest, I would go further. I do not want to vote for the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, and I hope he will not push it, but I think compulsory leave of absence should take place when working for foreign interests. This would make it clear that active membership of the House is not permitted during this time. The public would understand that, the House would understand that, the media and those who watch the second Chamber would understand that.
If that is the consequence of this, I would go further than the report. But I think the report should be supported. The four independent members were appointed for their expertise. It was a quite deliberate decision to have a large number of independent members on the Conduct Committee when it replaced the old Standards and Privileges Committee. We were expected to take cognisance of their expertise and their view of the reputation of the House. I rest my case in support of the report.
Lord Mann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, we have heard several times how we non-lawyers do not understand the principles and complexity of the legal profession. I will quote a recent article on international arbiters.
“The linguistic challenges in international arbitration can be both numerous and significant, with the potential to not only increase the cost and time spent on proceedings, but actually impact the entire outcome of the case.”
We have heard six international arbiters speak, so they will be familiar with the case of Occidental v Ecuador from seven years ago. That case, Ecuador being a state, would obviously be covered in some way by this. The cost of mistranslation was around $2 billion. When I set up a family-owned translation and interpreting company specialising in complex negotiations, I did not pay what I suspect the daily rates were for senior barristers and other legal professionals. We had to pay—it was a few years ago when I last did it—£500 a day. For Korean it was £700. Certain obscure languages would be more. We had to sign confidentiality clauses. There was no option; we could not negotiate to see whether the client wanted it or not. We had to do so.
If I still had that company now, I would be covered by this. It is not just lawyers and the legal profession who are impacted, and I have no problem whatever with the principle. I would have had no negotiating power there. If I had refused to sign a confidentiality agreement because I could not do so, I would not have got the job, full stop. There is no question about it. There was no negotiation potential. Some of the companies, Governments and state institutions were precisely the ones that would be covered by this.
Let us not pretend that only one specific profession is impacted by this. It is a little shameful that what, in the case of Occidental v Ecuador, was called the normal approach of international arbiters to forget about the importance of the translators in the work they do did not manifest itself among the issues that have been raised with the committee. Actually, if you think about it, they are far starker, because there is no negotiating power whatever.
From the language I hear, I get a sense of déjà vu. I wrote and co-presented the trade union submission to the Nolan Committee on Standards in Public Life and its successor committee. I had the job of persuading the senior Labour politicians, because of the links, that they were not going to get the kind of support that some of them were used to without it being declared publicly. It was difficult, because they said, “Hang on a minute. This is quite different. This is not about sleaze or cash for questions.” I am a member of that union, I have a long association with it, and I remember the special pleading every time. Thankfully, Rodney Bickerstaffe, the former boss of the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, came to me early on and said, “I’ve got your back if any of these rather famous politicians ever try to have a go at you over this.”
I won on the principle that standards in public life are not divisible and that you cannot claim special interests because of your particular perspective, which is exactly what was happening there. People said, “We are different. We have this relationship.” The same arguments were put coherently, eloquently and forcefully, but they were no different. In that situation, why should the public not know if a trade union had given some money to a politician? What is wrong with that? What is wrong with transparency?
I think of the Commons expenses scandal, which I warned the Prime Minister about 18 months before it became public. I successfully put a resolution through the Commons 12 months before it became public, and I did so without the Whips—I used devices that they had not quite caught up with, and I think it is fair to say that it sneaked through. That reversed and banned the so-called “flipping” of homes. The powers that be were stupid enough not to implement what Parliament had said, and we then saw the explosive consequences.
However, I was castigated again, repeatedly and constantly, as were a handful of others who said the same thing. They said, “We are people of honour”, to which the response is, “Yes, you are, and your honour will be strengthened by transparency. If anybody is not honourable, they will be caught out by transparency, and their behaviour will therefore change”. One did not need to cast aspersions on anybody then in relation to those principles. I am with the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, but not on the detail of his amendment. We need to go a lot further and extend it to Peers who go to embassies abroad. That should be logged and available for the public to see, as should all-party groups that do the same. Transparency is not a bad thing.
We choose to come here. No one has to come here, just as I did not have to stand and be elected as a parliamentarian. When I did, I sold my business because I thought it was invidious to be bidding for work on government contracts when I was on the inside, not because I could not account for it or because it was dishonest. It seemed uncomfortable to me. That is a price worth paying to speak out in our democracy. We are not even elected here. How could anybody not vote for more transparency and for these proposals?
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, I do not think that I have any interests to declare, but, because I am a member of the independent committee of the Bank of England that does enforcement decision-making, and because I am chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, I emphasise that I am speaking purely in a personal capacity.
I have spent more than 30 years—18 of them in this House, the others outside it—dealing with foreign policy. I was not working for foreign Governments but dealing with foreign policy; I want to make that clear. There has been a profound change in how foreign Governments and their agents seek to undermine, disrupt, manipulate, contort and use their resources to advance their interests and to undermine other countries’ interests.
I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, in presenting this report, has emphasised that this is not just about Russia and China, but it is about countries like Russia and China, and a whole lot of other states—many Middle Eastern powers and others—which use the UK’s open, transparent and democratic system to undermine our interests. That is what is at the heart of this. This may not have been the case 30 years ago but it is palpable and tangible, on a daily basis, to anyone who reads anything about foreign affairs in today’s world.
For me, there is nothing extraordinary in asking British parliamentarians who provide advisory services to foreign Governments to declare that and to declare the fee—in other words, their piece of gold—to advantage another Government. I use the word “advantage” advisedly. Most reasonable people would consider it a fairly proportionate ask. That these people are forbidden from providing such services is not what the report is calling for; all it is calling for is for them to tell us who they are working for and how much they are being paid. What is unreasonable about that? It would allow the public to assess the motivation of those Peers, our colleagues, working as lawmakers, and see where they are coming from.
I am grateful to Transparency International for providing a briefing which selected the numerous Members of this House who had declared in the register of interests working with or for foreign Governments. I have long watched that space—perhaps I have been more conscious of it because of the work that I have done. One of the interesting things that stands out is that those people are doing what we are now asking this other very small cohort to do. This is not that unusual. People already have to declare when they work for unsavoury Governments of all kinds, such as Bahrain, Kazakhstan, a host of “stans”, Russia and China, whatever. What is the outlier here? In the case of the work that we are talking about today, if the public want to know what is going on, and if we want to know what is going on, we have to open a national newspaper, where we will occasionally come across an interesting point that we had not been aware of.
It has been said that the information that people are being asked to provide today is of limited value. It may well be of limited value, because it is historic, but, nevertheless, it would be available. Even looking at historic information helps the public to know that somebody who is speaking about a law today might have had some interest in the past. That is the value of it.
Let me turn to the argument that London’s status would be diminished if a handful of lawyers potentially hold back from working for a foreign Government or its agents. London is not Andorra; it is not San Marino. The City of London’s reputation is solid and it will not be diminished; rather, it will be held in higher regard if it is known that, when you buy a British lawyer—potentially the best in the world, we are told—that will be known to all and sundry. I suspect that Governments would be proud to say to their domestic populations, “Yeah, we went out for the best”.
Of course, we will all be terribly sorry to lose the expertise of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith —or indeed any other noble Lord who may wish to no longer participate—if he has to take a leave of absence. As the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, said, we all make choices; we make choices as to whether or not to participate here.
Others have mentioned the fact that the clients of corporate law firms may have to forego using the lawyer of their choice. This may be so, but companies and clients around the world are frequently barred from using the lawyer of their choice simply because they cannot afford that lawyer. The bar exists in any event; it would not be a new innovation.
When it comes to the definition of “working” for a foreign Government or foreign power, there is the idea that giving advice is not “working” and does not imply support for the foreign power. But we know that public perceptions are important, and, for the public, of course it implies support—they are not going to go through the detail of professional standards at the Bar Council. If the public see in the register in retrospect that, historically, a particular lawyer has done a certain piece of work, and then that lawyer speaks with a level of expertise on a certain matter, the public can determine whether or not the expertise is warranted and whether to give any weight to it.
I have listened carefully to the very thoughtful points made by so many distinguished noble and learned Lords and lawyers today, but it is my view that if this is unfair—it might seem so, and it may even be somewhat unfair—then upholding the highest standards that we can and retaining public trust in our institutions is worth the curtailment of their freedom. If they wish to remain with us here in this House, they should rightly be prepared to take this step. We all make sacrifices in the interests of probity, integrity and democracy.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB) [V]
My Lords, at this late stage in the debate all the principles have been canvassed, so I will speak briefly. Before I do so, I declare two particular interests: I sit as a judge in Qatar as president of the Qatar International Court, having been appointed by the state of Qatar in 2018, and I sit as an arbitrator practising in London in commercial arbitrations, although I have not sat in a dispute where one of the parties was a foreign state.
As this debate has shown, there are two conflicting issues of principle. First, there is the fundamental right of the client of any lawyer to confidentiality between him and the lawyer and the fundamental rule of confidentiality in arbitrations. The other conflicting principle is the imperative in a democracy for transparency and, to that end, that the interests of all Members of the legislature are disclosed. The objective of the Conduct Committee was to balance these conflicting principles. That was not an easy task, as the committee had to balance, first, the potential damage to London as one of the leading centres in the world for dispute resolution, both in court and arbitration; secondly, the potential risk that foreign Governments would not be able to take advice from some of the ablest lawyers in the UK, or that some of the ablest lawyers in the UK would be disadvantaged; and, thirdly, the potential damage to our democracy and to public confidence in the House.
In my view, in matters of this kind we as a House should generally respect the judgment of the committee on such a balance. The committee has consulted. It is a body that contains independent members, and independent members often have a different and balanced perspective. The House should therefore not lightly go against such a judgment and decision. However, it is not necessary for me to resort to saying that because I am of the view that the committee has reached the right judgment in the report on balancing the two conflicting interests.
First, the requirement is not intended to be retrospective. It would be difficult, in accordance with principle, to make it retrospective as there are, in certain circumstances, commitments that have been undertaken, and it is the duty of the person concerned to continue with them and with the existing rules. As there are likely to be current matters that run on beyond the grace period—a year, as many will know to their cost, is often a short time in some arbitrations—the requirement of confidentiality should not be applied so that it operates retrospectively. However, for the future there can be no doubt about the proper course of action.
If the report is adopted, a foreign state will be told when it seeks to instruct a Member of this House that the fact that it has sought legal advice or representation by a Member of this House, or has appointed a Member of this House as an arbitrator, will be made public; it will have to disclose that fact and the remuneration paid. If the state does not wish that to be made public then it will not go to that particular Member of this House. However, I cannot see how that can damage London. The strength of London is that there are sufficient persons of great skill and eminence who can provide these services. In my view, that very strength makes it extremely unlikely that any damage would result from the judgment that the committee has made.
Clearly, there will be disadvantage to some. But it is a fact of life as a lawyer that you have to disclose interests when they arise. When there is a conflict or the client learns of certain interests, he may decide not to instruct that person. I see no difference in principle between that position and the position that would require disclosure by a Member of this House. Clients are used to dealing with situations of that kind. The position may be different for members of large law firms, as they would be disabling their partners from accepting such work. But unless a special exemption was crafted for such a person, I do not see how that should prevent the adoption of this report, damaging though it might be to one or two individuals.
When one looks at the position on the other side, no one in this House can have the slightest doubt about the integrity of the lawyer Members; nor would anyone for a moment think that any lawyer advising or representing a client would be influenced by that activity in relation to the business of the House. However, in these matters, the public’s perception is all. I do wish lawyers were better understood by the public—that the public understood their role and shared the views of those in this House about the way lawyers act. However, that is not a realistic expectation. It is important that we are fully transparent. What matters is the public’s judgment of the way we conduct ourselves. Transparency is essential and it must, subject to retrospectivity, take precedence over confidentiality. For these reasons, I hope the House will agree to the report.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, this debate leaves absolutely nothing to doubt. Transparency is all. I have always been an advocate of overly declaring and have no problem whatever with the provisions today. I follow the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, somewhat. While not being totally hypothetical, that is not the principal cause of my remarks, which I will come to in a moment.
I am founder of an internet-based platform, supplyfinder.com, which is properly declared. It covers 224 countries and works in the UK’s interest. It is conceivable, however, that the export promotion agencies of any country may wish to avail themselves of the opportunity to extol their exporters, or the country as an inward investment destination. That agency may be a promotion agency wholly owned by a state. I only mention this because of the issue concerning the state. I am not lobbying for the state, but states have the opportunity to put certain issues relating to their activities on to the site.
Turning to my principal points, the Nolan principles of public life are not difficult to comprehend and should come as second nature when partaking in parliamentary or governmental affairs or the Civil Service, or when they need adding to local government. My driving dynamic in your Lordships’ House has been to attempt to bring first-hand insight and balance to many complex issues, principally those from afar. While always hoping for constructive and stable relationships, it is necessary to get under the skin of a subject and to attempt to ensure that channels for dialogue are open. Today’s mounting tensions with Russia are testimony to that, with dialogue in the deep freeze.
I hope that I might be excused, therefore, in putting on record some matters in relation to that country, particularly given that the report before us has Russia with any possible influence—which in my case is zero—in Parliament as its focus. Members of the committee might be aware that the Sunday Times referred recently to several Members of your Lordships’ House, myself included, in the context of Russia. Hansard records that I have addressed Russia in substantive remarks on three occasions. First, when Russia was debated on 7 June 2000, then on Chechnya and the North Caucasus when debated on 5 May 2011 and, finally, during my remarks in a debate that I introduced on relations with that country on 29 January 2018.
Some time after that 2018 debate, I ventured to Russia, paying my expenses lock, stock and barrel. However, that included being invited—again, properly declared—to the St Petersburg International Economic Forum to speak. Given that the current British ambassador in Moscow is patron of the Russo-British Chamber of Commerce in Moscow and London, with her husband serving as executive director, I assume that that presents no issue of concern.
Subsequently, while attending a Speakers’ conference of 40 regional Parliaments in Nur-Sultan, Kazakhstan, where the Speaker of the Russian Duma was also present, our respective minders inquired whether a call on Speaker Volodin would be of interest. It seemed churlish not to accept. I set out in detail all the deep concerns of the United Kingdom. Speaker Volodin remarked that no parliamentarian from the UK had called on him, yet parliamentary delegations from various European parliaments had done so. We discussed how parliamentary exchange might be affected, given that the IPU UK chairman had placed an embargo on any dialogue with Russia, with a firm proviso that there be no calls that included the Kremlin, and conditional on opposition political parties being included in any programme. A visit was facilitated by the Council of Europe. I was accompanied by two senior Members of your Lordships’ House—the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, who is in his place, and the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, who is not in his place.
We were briefed prior to departure by senior members of the Foreign Office, including at director level. Their principal concerns were that the Russians would manipulate the visit to their ends. I will conclude by confirming that the Russians did not do so and have not done so, and conducted themselves in an appropriate manner. The trip met our objectives, with the Russian side keeping in line with our pre-established conditions. I leave it to this committee and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to draw their own conclusions.
The report before us rightly recommends that in case of doubt one should err on the side of registration. That process would benefit from having any clarification deemed appropriate added to avoid erroneous perception whereby when one does declare, by the letter of the arrangements, it could be perceived as not telling the whole story. It would therefore be helpful to add a short clarification so that the public are aware of the detail.
I have certainly welcomed the opportunity to counter the remarks reported in the Sunday Times that, in my regard, were played absolutely with a straight bat in the United Kingdom’s best interests.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
My Lords, I am very glad that we have had this debate. I shall thank one or two people before I reply. First, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell of Beeston. It is always very nice to have a former Leader of the House backing you up. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, who hit the nail on the head about the decisions we are taking today. I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, for his collegiate approach, which is very much appreciated.
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in today’s important debate on what is a difficult issue. The views expressed are strongly and sincerely held. I cannot promise to address all the points made, but I will answer as many as I can, not necessarily in the order of those speaking.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, raised points about his long and ongoing arbitration. I think the committee, in keeping all this under constant review, will also keep an eye on the grace period. If it becomes clear that there are a lot of difficulties like those that he outlined which cannot be resolved by the end of 2021, I am sure it would consider extending the period. I am rather sorry that one noble Lord criticised the grace period and said it did not mean anything, because the intention was to make life easier, particularly for the lawyers. On the noble and learned Lord’s point about arbitration, it needs to be registered in either category 1 or 2, not both. It will almost certainly be category 2 in his case, but we mentioned it in category 1 just in case an arbitrator set up an arbitration company of which he was a director, which would make it a category 1 entry.
I will deal with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, echoed by the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, in the previous speech. When we say “services”, we do not mean it in the sense of the services sector; we mean literally anything provided in return for money. A one-off sale of something might be caught if the Member worked on achieving the sale. We will keep things under close review and, if employed Members are suffering a detriment from their employer because of the new disclosure requirements, we will look to see whether we can address that. The noble Lord gave the example of software, and I think the noble Viscount did as well. There would have to be substantial and direct contact with the client to make it subject to these rules. It could be either the revenue received by the firm or the money received by the Member. If any clarification is required, I am sure that the registrar of interests would help out where there is any lack of certainty.
I turn to the issue on which some noble Lords felt very strongly: that we consulted Members and their professional bodies but then appeared to have ignored the results or gone against their advice. The response to our consultation covered the full spectrum of opinion, from wanting no exemptions whatever to objecting to the scheme on principle. There was no consensus on the right thing to do. With regard to the representations made by professional bodies, we gave those from the legal profession particular consideration. We recognise the duty of confidentiality that lawyers have to their clients, and have therefore proposed specific provisions to account for them. Not only will lawyers benefit from the grace period for existing clients and the prospective nature of the new requirements, they will also have a special provision allowing them to delay disclosure of clients until they have been paid.
I am the first to say that the UK is top of the tree when it comes to our legal expertise and arbitrators; I had experience of some of that when I was chair of ACAS. Preventing Members of this House, many of whom are leading members of the UK’s legal profession, from doing this would seriously undermine that reputation, they maintain. The Conduct Committee believes that the public interest requires absolute transparency when it comes to Members of the national legislature working with a foreign power. We do not dispute that many Members who are of great benefit to this House are also of great benefit to their professions and, by extension, the UK’s reputation in those areas. There are, however, very many more outstanding lawyers and arbitrators who are not Members of this House, and we doubt that the UK’s reputation in these fields will be seriously undermined.
I could try to pick up all the points made by noble Lords, but in view of the time I will not cover most of the points; I hope that I have done the ones that people were most concerned about. I reassure noble Lords of what I said in my introductory remarks: the Conduct Committee will keep this under review, and advice will be available from the registrar of interests. The House knows that the time is right for this reform. I have deliberately not mentioned all the headlines that have been in the papers for the last week or so; this is an issue affecting us, it is a recommendation from the Conduct Committee, and I am not getting involved in those areas. The time is right for this reform; I hope the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, will feel able to withdraw his amendment in the light of some of the assurances that I have given.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, as I did at the outset, I once again thank the noble Baroness for her introduction to this debate and, indeed, for her wind-up just now. It was a model of moderate and—to some extent, but not altogether—persuasive advocacy. That having been said, it is right that we should acknowledge, as I think I fairly pointed out in my own remarks a little while ago, that this is not a lawyer’s whinge. The fact that a number of lawyers who are Members of this House have spoken is not something we should be ashamed of, nor retreat from; they demonstrate the practical consequence of what could happen if this proposal goes through.
As has been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, noble and learned Lords, and Members of this House who are lawyers or in other professions, it is fair to say that there is a genuine conflict between the public interest in transparency about what we do in this House and the public interest—it is a public interest, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger, most correctly pointed out, aided by the noble Lords, Lord Grabiner, Lord Marks and Lord Pannick—in the private relationship of confidentiality between a lawyer or any other professional, be it a doctor, an architect, an accountant, even the great translator, the noble Lord, Lord Mann, and their client. Without that confidentiality being maintained, respected and understood by this House, there will be an undermining of the rule of law and all that goes with it.
It is not something we can set aside lightly. I accept, however, that it can be set aside if it is done deliberately by a House of Parliament—this House of Parliament—having advised itself and considered where it believes the balance between those two public interests should be resolved. Clearly, the sense I get this evening from those who have spoken in this debate is that this House considers that the public interest in transparency outweighs the public interest in permitting the continuance of a Member of this House, as a lawyer, maintaining and seeking to preserve—and indeed upholding—the privacy and confidentiality of his or her relationship with a client, no matter whether that client be a foreign state or a private individual.
Let me just touch upon the expression “a foreign state”. The report, at paragraph 8, in my view tendentiously, uses the phrase “a foreign power”. It takes me back to John Buchan novels. Of course, I suspect that that expression was used deliberately because it creates an impression. Indeed, it created a sufficient impression on the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, that she went one stage further and drew our attention not only to lawyers working for a foreign power but to lawyers being bought by a foreign power. She thus ignored, if I may say so with the greatest respect, that proper relationship between a lawyer who is instructed to act independently and to use his judgment as an officer of the court, and the client—it, him or herself. One would no more accuse the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, of being an agent for a murderer because he defends a man on a charge of murder at the Old Bailey, than one would accuse him of being an agent of some foreign power because he has been instructed to represent it in an arbitration.
We need to use our language carefully in debates such as this, because the backdrop to it—albeit that the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, very properly and deliberately, did not enter into this arena—is, as we all know, sleaze: Russian suborning of Members of both Houses of Parliament for malign political or diplomatic ends, and the recent problems caused by the David Cameron and Greensill Capital matter. They are, as I said at the outset, wholly irrelevant to what we are here deciding—and the noble Baroness was perfectly correct to distance herself from those—but some of us, for good rhetorical reasons, no doubt, have decided to conflate those questions. That, of course, is entirely their right. It is not, to my mind, attractive, but that is of course their right.
There is a difference, as I said, between those two public interests, and this House has a right to decide which takes precedence in this particular matter. There is a difference between making a declaration and making a registration of one’s interests, of all sorts, and it is not a declaration or registration that applies only to complaining lawyers. It applies to all of us. It particularly applies to all of us who have outside, paid interests.
There is also a vast difference—and here, I bring the debate back to an area where the noble Baroness did not want to go—between spivery, or commercial paid lobbying, and legitimate commercial activity. We heard that from the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, and we heard it from a number of other Members of this House who may or may not be lawyers, and some who most definitely are.
I want briefly to touch on what I thought was one of the most effective contributions this evening: that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. He gently but hugely persuasively pointed out that, despite the enthusiasm of the majority of those who have spoken tonight, there are likely to be unintended consequences of swallowing this report whole. I am grateful that the noble Baroness, having no doubt listened to him, is prepared to keep an open door—I think I quote her correctly; she used that expression or something similar—so that, even if this Motion goes through unamended tonight, the matter is not closed.
I hope that other members of the committee and all Members of this House will agree with the noble Baroness because, if we are to shut this door so that good, honest, reputable Members of this House such as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith—he did not terrorise me when he said that he might have to take a leave of absence—feel that they have no option but to depart this place, it will not hurt them but it will undermine and damage the standing of this House. We benefit from the presence of great lawyers, architects, accountants and professionals of all sorts in this House; we are not diminished by it. I urge this House: please beware the unintended consequences, take the noble Baroness at her word and allow us, if this does not pan out well, for the benefit of the public and this House—forget the benefit of the lawyers—to make sure that the door of this committee is open and never closed.
When he was the majority leader in the United States Senate, Lyndon Johnson said that a politician needed to know how to do only one thing: add up. I have done a little calculation. It would be unwise, even Balaclava-like, to charge through the Division Lobby this evening—much as I would enjoy the punch-up. Bearing in mind both what the noble Baroness has said this evening about her door being open and the damage that would be caused if this were put to a vote and decisively defeated, it would be better for me to seek the leave of this House to withdraw my amendment.
I do so with gratitude to all those who have spoken in this debate on both sides of the argument. This debate needed to be had and, if we are to be told what we are to do, who we may talk to and who we may work for outside this House, well, we must have the debate publicly in this Chamber. I would like to see it done via legislation but that is a different matter, and I am delighted that we have done it here and not just in the close confines of a small conduct committee.
I have spoken too much and too often. I have so many interests to declare, having listened to what has been said tonight, that I may have to take a leave of absence—at least until next week. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Balfe
As an amendment to the Motion in the name of Baroness Donaghy, at end insert “but, while welcoming the report, believes that it only deals with a small part of the issues that need addressing; further believes that if the public are to be supportive of legislation, they have a right to know the full financial interests of legislators; asks the Select Committee to examine the need for the House to adopt disclosure rules as close as possible to those operated by the House of Commons; and instructs the Committee to bring forward a further report exploring this matter.”
Lord Balfe (Con)
I will speak very briefly. I appreciated in particular the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mann. We need to keep an eye on what might be charging over the horizon—and to keep our way of doing things in this House open and transparent.
I reflect that 56 years ago this week I strode over the steps of the Foreign Office as a very junior member of staff. Since then I have spent most of my life talking to people, many of whom have been quite objectionable. However, I have always tried to talk to them at our expense. One very useful thing has been the Lord Speaker’s fund, which allows you to visit countries of the Council of Europe at the expense of this Parliament. You are never in a country where you are asking for anything at all because the House pays the fare and the subsistence. It is a very valuable programme as it enables people to talk to others without being beholden to them. It is the programme on which the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, and I went to Russia.
It is important to talk and, of course, not all relationships are financial. Tomorrow morning I shall be having coffee with the Turkmenistan ambassador. Now, many people have things to say about Turkmenistan and its attitude to such matters as human rights, but this is part of a big jigsaw, is it not? You have coffee with him, which is not a declarable interest; it is important that we do not retreat into a laager. In 25 years in the European Parliament, I spent a huge amount of time talking to people who, let us say, were not our cup of tea—people such as the French National Front and others beyond that.
With all that in mind, and in the hope that, through the Conduct Committee, we will as a House look into the possibility of expanding and clarifying our areas of declaration so that they become closer to those in the Commons than they are at the moment, I will not press my amendment.